9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other issues raised in grounds of appeal go into oblivion. The first issue being on account of unaccounted cash receipts which is there in A.Ys 2007-08 to 2010-11 and in A.Y 2011-12, the addition is in respect of unexplained money on account of gold coins found during the course of search. The ld. AR did not press this ground for the smallness of the amount involved and, therefore, the same is dismissed out right. 5. The issues raised by the Revenue shall be considered separately. 6. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and with the assistance of the ld. Counsel, we have considered the documentary evidences brought on record in the form of Paper Book in light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules. Judicial decisions relied upon were carefully perused. 7. Facts on record reveal that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the case of the assessee and group companies on 13.05.2010. During the course of search operations, certain documents were seized from Indore Office of the assessee, named as Annexure LP I-25. A blue diary in the form of a Bank Pass Book was also seized. The entries in the loose sheets and the diary w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .10.2007 Rs. 19,250/- 08.10.2007 Rs. 12,50,000/- 17.10.2007 Rs. 42,452/- 26.10.2007 Rs. 67,500/- 29.10.2007 Rs. 20,44,967/- 29.11.2007 Rs. 7,78,5000/- 10. We have only mentioned the sample entries to show that the additions on account of these debit entries is not justified since these debit entries are nothing but unaccounted receipts transferred to Head Office. Similar entries need to be examined and verified to arrive at the correct figure of unaccounted receipts from business. 11. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the debit entries and if the same are in the nature of transfer to Head Office, then no addition is called for because the receipts only have to be added as unaccounted receipts. Here, we would like to make it clear that unaccounted receipts have to be taxed as unexplained income of the assessee subject to verification mentioned hereinabove. 12. It appears that there is some arithmetical error in the totalling done by the Assessing Officer. The same also needs to be rectified. For example, in A.Y 2008-09, there is a difference in total amounting to Rs. 5,93,134/-. Similar totalling error needs to be v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44,97,650/- and in assessment year 2010-11, the disallowance is of Rs. 80,04,260/- 21. The undisputed facts is that in the impugned assessment years, the assessee has not earned any exempt income. 22. The ld. DR strongly supported the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad 115 ITR 519 and Maxopp Investment Ltd 91 Taxmann 154. It is the say of the ld. DR that even if there is no exempt income earned during the year under consideration, the disallowance u/s 14A is imminent and the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the same. 23. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the assessee strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd 378 ITR 37 and in the case of Oil Industry Development Board in IT Appeal No. 197 of 2018. 24. We have heard the rival submissions and have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. As mentioned elsewhere, the assessee company has not earned any exempt income. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Oil Industry Development Board [supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt(Rs.) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 1 Virgin Capital Services Pvt Ltd. AXIS Bank 098315 03.11.2008 1,50,00,000 2 -do- -do- 098314 -do- 1,00,00,000 3 VIP Leasing & Finance Pvt Ltd -do- 014018 -do- 50,00,000 4 -do- -do- 014025 -do- 1,00,00,000 5 -do- -do- 014026 04.11.2008 1,00,00,000 6 Humtum Marketing Pvt Ltd. -do- 094582 -do- 1,00,00,000 7 VIP Leasing & Finance Pvt Ltd -do- 006622 21.11.2008 2,00,00,000 TOTAL 8,00,00,000 27. The Assessing Officer called for necessary details from the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee filed detailed reply dated 26.03.203 and the same reads as under: "The assessee company is engaged in real estate development and received booking against its projects. The assessee company received amount from the companies against booking of various project in the normal course of business. The assessee company has not taken any accommodation entries from the said companies. It is further submitted that the booking of the said companies were subsequently cancelled on specific request from the respective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has grossly failed in discharging the initial onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act. 33. We have heard the rival submissions and have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and have carefully considered the judicial decisions relied upon. At the outset, we have to say that the Assessing Officer has not considered the transaction in true perspective and simply relied upon the report of the Inv Wing, New Delhi. The facts show that the transaction of Rs. 8 crores is not that of loan simpliciter. It is a business transaction and should have been considered from that angle. 34. The companies, namely Virgin Capital Services Pvt Ltd, VIP Leasing and Finance Pvt Ltd and Humtum Marketing Pvt Ltd have tendered money for booking flats in the projects of the assessee company. It appears that the Assessing Officer has not examined the transaction of booking flats by these companies. It also appears that after booking the flats in the projects of the assessee company, bookings were cancelled and subsequently, the money was refunded to these companies. Though the first appellate authority has deleted the addition but at the same time, he has also not gone into th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Azad Singh. The address was provided but summons u/s 131 could not be served upon him. 41. The assessee was asked to explain the transactions appearing in the impounded documents and reconcile the same with its books of account. On receiving no plausible reply, addition of Rs. 1,84,82,000/- was made. 42. There was one more impounded document in respect of a property and measuring 647.50 sq yard which was purchased for a total consideration of Rs. 1.07 crores. The share holders of this plot were Shri Jagjit, Shri Titu, Shri Akash, Shri Rakesh Pankaj and Shri Pawan. The assessee was asked to explain the transactions noted in the impounded documents and reconcile the same with its books of account. On receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 48,69,900/-. 43. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and pointed out that during the survey proceedings itself, Shri Vinod Kumar Chauhan in his statement, has clearly stated that these impounded documents belonged to Shri Azad Singh and in respect of another property, it was brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that in the impounded sheet itself, names of buyers have been ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
