9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of 35 cases arising out of the very search dt.03-01-2002 at the office and factory premises of M/s.Gemini Distilleries (HYD) Pvt. Ltd. as well as assessee herein Sri Harmahender Singh Bagga and group concerns and individuals of 'Bagga Group' ; culminating in initiation of Section 158BC proceedings against them. 3. This assessee then moved his Miscellaneous Applications 109 and 110/Hyd/2013 which stood accepted by yet another co-ordinate bench in its order dt.30-10-2015 reading as under: "Shri Harmahender Singh Bagga filed these two Miscellaneous Applications against the order of the ITAT in IT(SS)A Nos. 69/Hyd/2005 and 74/Hyd/2005 for the block period 1996-97 to 2001-02 and from 01-04-2001 to 03-01-2002 decided by the common order in the group of appeals dt. 03-08-2012. 2. It is the grievance of assessee that it has been argued at the time of hearing the appeal the fact that transactions entered in regular Books of Account of assessee and which is reflected in the Books cannot be subject matter for addition in block period assessments. It was contended that ITAT has not considered the established law that the transactions entered in the regular Books of Account have to be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposits, thereby treating the sum of Rs. 37,13,100/- as undisclosed income of the b lock period: .... " It is observed in Page No. 11 Para No. 13 of the ITAT Order that "The assessee also raised a ground in IT(SS)A No. 74/H/05 with regard to addition of Rs. 21,11,000 out of Rs. 37,13,400 made towards unexplained credit in assessment year 1997-98. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 16,02,400 on the reason that the credit is explained and sustained Rs. 21,11,000 out of Rs. 37,13,400. Before the CIT(A) the assessee also not pressed the addition made in respect of credit in his bank account no. 13953 with Union Bank of India. Similarly, the assessee not pressed the deposit of Rs. 14,000 through SB A/c No 624 with Syndicate Bank. The assessee has not furnished the satisfactory explanation to the balance sustained amount. Being so, the CIT (A) sustained the same. Before us the assessee has not furnished any further details substantiating the credit. Accordingly, the addition is sustained." The Hon'ble ITAT ought to have appreciated that once it is established that the entries are reflected in the books of account, the same cannot be added under Block Period and deleted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the entries are reflected in the books of account, the same cannot be added under Block Period and deleted the addition. 6. Similarly, in IT(SS)A No. 74/H/05, in respect of addition of Rs. 14,00,000/the same amount is reflected in books of account as can be seen from para 48 and 49 at page 28 of order and cannot be added in block assessment. It is observed in Page No. 28 Para No. 48 of the ITAT Order that "the addition relating to Rs. 1 lakh in the name of 1\1,Is. Kuldeep Chit was not pressed before the CIT(A). Hence the assessee cannot raise this ground before us. This ground is dismissed." It is observed in Page No. 28 Para No. 49 of the ITAT Order that "the addition relating to Rs. 13 lakhs in the name of 1\1,Is. Ajit Enterprises, as the profits of the proprietary concern 1\1,Is Ajit Enterprises was not being shown in the regular return of income Sri Satpal Singh Bagga, being so the explanation offered by the assessee is not acceptable. This ground is dismissed." The Hon'ble ITAT ought to have appreciated that once it is established that the entries are reflected in the books of account, the same cannot be added under Block Period and deleted the addition. 7. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th to 13th and assessee's 4th to 10th substantive grounds in IT(SS)A Nos. 69 & 74/Hyd/2005; respectively. 4. We first come to the Revenue's 8 to 13 substantive grounds seeking to revive the Assessing Officer's action adding deposits of Rs. 16,02,400/- (in M/s.Ajantha Chemicals involving twin components of Rs. 9,01,300/- and 7,01,050/- in AY.1997-98), un-explained cash credits addition in AY.1999- 2000 of Rs. 10.50 Lakhs in case of Shri Avinash Amarlal, unexplained cash credits for AY.2000-01 of Rs. 13,45,211/-, unexplained cash credits of Rs. 12,89,895/- in cases of M/s.C.D. Rerolling Mills and Synny Enterprises of Rs. 6.32 lakhs and Rs. 6,57,895/-, unexplained cash credits in the name of M/s.Tirupathi Enterprises of Rs. 35,92,205/-, un-explained cash credits in AY.1999-2000 of Rs. 1,85,000/- (involving M/s.Gemini Constructions); respectively. 5. The assessee's 4 to 10 substantive grounds in his appeal ITA No.74/Hyd/2005 plead that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making unexplained cash credits addition in capital account in AY.1996- 97 involving twin capital contributions (in case of M/s.Balaji Enterprises to the tune of Rs. 4 Lakhs and Rs. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rming the tribunal's above order. 5.3. The factual position is no different in the instant remaining issues as well since the Assessing Officer's remand report dt.02-05-2018 (supra) itself verified that assessee's credits which are recorded in already maintained books of account which could form subject matter of regular and not block assessments as per hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in the very group of cases. We also wish to quote case law: i. B.Jayalakshmi Vs. ACIT (2018) [96 taxmann.com 486] (Mad); ii. CIT Vs. DM Purnesh (2020) (426 ITR 169) (Karnataka); holding that the Revenue cannot be treated as an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer's remand report agrees with an assessee's contentions. We thus go by the foregoing reasoning and hold that the Revenue's substantive ground Nos.8 to 13 seeking to revive the corresponding addition(s) deserve to be declined and assessee's ground Nos.4 to 10 (supra) succeed (except the amount of Rs. 8,532/- pertaining to Syndicate Bank-624) in above terms. Ordered accordingly. The Revenue's appeal No.69/Hyd/2005 fails where as the assessee's cross appeal No.74/Hyd/2005 is partly accepted. Necessary computation shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
