TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly shows that this amount is not appearing in any of the impounded material, same has been included by the learned assessing officer on the basis of the balancing figure of the amount receivable, and amount received. Therefore if the amount is not received and is merely a balancing figure, the same could not have been taxed as income of the assessee as it is not at all received. Naturally, the sum pertains to assessment year 2007 08 and assessment year 2009 10 and therefore naturally they could not have been added in the hands of the assessee for assessment year 2008 09 and therefore same are deleted. Obviously, whether the same are taxable in the hands of the assessee or not in those years were required to be dealt with by deciding the appeal of the learned assessing officer for those respective years. Duplicate entries have been deleted by the learned CIT A . Therefore as the amount of addition sustained by the learned CIT A is higher than the amount of the balance addition after removing [1] amounts not received, [2] duplicate entries,[3] amounts not appearing in the impounded material and [4] amount received against the advance is less than the amount appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or making an assessment, assessment order passed cannot be upheld. The honourable Supreme Court in case of Asst Commissioner of income tax versus Hotel Blue moon [ 2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] categorically held that notice u/s 143 (2) is mandatory for completing assessment. Therefore, as in the present case the assumption of jurisdiction for making an assessment has not been validly assumed by issuing the notice by the assessing officer who was authorised to issue such notice, the assessment cannot be upheld. Amount is received in cash by the assessee is only money which are not recorded in the books of account - Assessment year 2007 08 - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- On careful consideration we find that the assessee has shown advances in its books of accounts Under the head advance received from customers. Therefore, it is apparent that the amount has already been recorded in the books of accounts the addition has been correctly deleted by the learned CIT A. The amount was found to be the bank balances and is cash on hand. Both the items are related to regular books of accounts and therefore there could not have been added as undisclosed income of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank. Similarly at serial number nine there is a transaction in the name of VSK enterprise dated 4/10/2006, this also stated by the assessee to be transaction through cheque. However no details of recording of these entries in the books of the assessee is shown. Thus merely because the assessee has mentioned it to be a bank transaction, it cannot be deleted. Therefore the learned CIT A has deleted this addition only on the expression of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to show before the learned assessing officer with respect to the above two entries whether they are recorded in the books of accounts through cheque in the books of the assessee on and if they are related to some other party, the assessee should give name and address of those parties to the learned assessing officer for examination determine that those are not unaccounted receipts of the assessee. The solitary ground raised by the learned assessing officer with respect to the addition is partly allowed. Undisclosed/unaccounted income during the survey conducted - Assessment year 2009 10 - CIT appeal held that the assessee has already included the above sum as an advance because the proje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee therefore, the learned AO is in appeal for assessment year 2007 08 in ITA number 4124/M/ 2012. 05. ITA number 4124/MUM/2012 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2007 08 has raised following grounds of appeal:- i. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the additions made by the AO of ₹ 48,867,850/ on account of unaccounted cash receipt found in books impounded during survey. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee was not liable for audit u/s 44AB. 06. For assessment year 2008 09 assessee filed its return of income on 28/9/2010 at total income of ₹ 1,315,235/ . As the survey was conducted on 16/10/2008, the assessee revised its return declaring a total income at ₹ 7,883,435/ on 5/5/2009 whereby assessee offered an additional income of ₹ 6,568,200/ . Learned assessing officer passed an order u/s 144 of the act on 28/12/2010 wherein the addition of ₹ 619,105,369/ was made on account of the cash receipts not accounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 144 of The Act on 28/12/2011 assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹ 33,558,200/ . 014. The assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT A, who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee reading that the learned assessing officer has made the addition without any material evidence. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. Therefore, the learned AO has preferred this appeal in ITA number 4122/M/2012 for assessment year 2009 10. 015. The learned AO in ITA no. 4122/Mum/2012 has raised following grounds of appeal:- (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the A.O. of Rs. 4,88,67,850/- on account of unaccounted cash receipts found in books impounded during survey. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was not liable for audit u/s 44AB. (iii) The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored. (iv) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground. 016. In Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the assessment order has not issued notice u/s 143 (2) of the act. vii. Notice u/s 143 (2) of the act was issued by a different assessing officer whereas the order was passed by the different assessing officer renders the entire proceedings and order passed as bad in law. viii. Issuing of notice u/s 143 (2) by one officer and finalizing the assessment by the different officer is not permitted. ix. To support its contention the assessee relied on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain versus Union of India and others (Writ Petition number 3489 of 2019 dated 8/3/2022. x. It is further prayed that the provisions of Section 292BB cannot also come into the play in view of the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Bhagyalaxmi conclave private limited versus DCIT, Circle 13 (1), Kolkata In ITA number 2517/KOL/2019. 018. For invoking the provisions of rule 27 of ITAT rules, assessee submitted that in form number 35 the assessee has raised specific grounds that the learned AO did not have jurisdiction to assess the income. He further referred statement of facts where it is stated that notice have been issued by a di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 2008 09 and 2009 10. You have stated that the firm has already filed the return for assessment year 2008 09, Under these circumstances the firm should filed revised return for assessment year 2008 09 showing additional income of ₹ 6,568,200/ for assessment year 2008 09. Ans:- the firm has not recorded the cash component in the books of accounts maintained by the firm has hit is related to payments over and above the agreement value. Therefore, the firm will file revised return for assessment year 2008 09 and include ₹ 6,568,200/ as additional income. The firm will file its revised return at the earliest. At present the firm has PAN number allotted by Mumbai jurisdiction. Necessary action would be taken to transfer that the permanent account number two income tax Officer Ward 4 (2) a jurisdiction and accordingly revised return would be filed. The forum has not recorded cash component even of the current financial year i.e. 2008 09 relevant to assessment year 2009 10. These cash components work out to ₹ 33,558,200/ . The farmer will show these amounts of ₹ 33,558,200/ as additional income for assessment year 2009 10 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 A 9 1 12 25,95,625 1,48,000 13 A 10 1 88 9,27,11,528 nil 14 A 11 1 nil nil 15 A 12 1 103 68,26,110 1,20,58,320 16 A 13 1 54 25,72,000 32,85,426 17 A 14 1 101 1,17,65,850 nil Total 61,91,05,369 16,88,27,961 023. Based on the above documents, Ld AO questioned the assessee which remained unanswered therefore an ex parte order was passed u/s 144 of the act by making addition of ₹ 619,105,369 on account of cash receipts over and above the returned income of the assessee at ₹ 7,883,435/- and assessee the gross total income at ₹ 626,988,804/-. 024. Assessee prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is mentioned in paragraph number 8 of his order. Learned CIT A wanted to know the exact details with respect to the amount refunded to the customers of Rs 285344319/- as project was scrapped for want of government approval. v. The learned AO submitted another Remand report on 5/3/2012. vi. He further referred to the reply of the assessee in response to the above remand report mentioned at paragraph number 13 of the order of the learned CIT A and reiterated the same. He referred to paragraph number 15 of the order of the learned CIT A wherein the advance received from various parties for certain projects which could not fructify because of want of government approval and subsequently scrapped could not have been added to the income of the assessee as Sum is returned. The learned CIT A categorically noted in paragraph number 15.4.2 wherein he confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 9,136,813. vii. He further stated that the additions made by the learned assessing officer of certain amounts are without having any cogent materials to substantiate. viii. He further held that whatever has not been received cannot be considered for taxing for various projects. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned CIT A held as Under:- 15. I have considered Assessment Order, 1st Remand order, 1st Remand Report, letter of AO dated 11/11/2011, 2nd Remand order, 2nd Remand Report and appellant submissions filed before me during the appellant proceedings including the appellant submissions before AO during the assessment remand proceedings. After going the same my observations findings are as under: 15.1 It was an exparte order the seized material was before AO. It has been mentioned by the AR that the AO has been constantly changing and vascillating his contention regarding quantum of alleged cash receipts. It can be seen from the Assessment Order, Remand Reports and letter of A.O. i.e. a) Assessment order dated 28/12/2010 b) Explanation letter of AO dated 11/11/2011 for Remand report 1. c) The second remand report dated 05/03/2012 15.2.1. Similarly it has been alleged by the AO that the appellant has been changing the stand. Since there was lot of submissions and counter submissions by the AO and AR, I thought it prudent to verify the facts from impounded papers and not the mere allegations or the submissions. Accordingly, letter dated 09.03.2012 was issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such receipts cannot even be taxed u/s.56 because as per the impounded materials, the amounts have been received from various parties for certain consideration and the consideration was booking of gala/shops. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that such liabilities as reflected in the impounded materials, which again is neither regular books of accounts nor any systematic write up which can be termed as duplicate set of books of accounts. Undisputedly, except for the loose papers, the department did not file any duplicate set of books of accounts which could have been considered. Therefore, only on the basis of loose papers where certain writings of amounts are there and again which is not in regular manner and which again clearly shows that these were rough notings reflecting certain projects against which certain amounts were likely to be received and out of which part of the amounts were received and which again was merely an advance/booking amounts and not any Final Sale amount which can be considered for taxation. Therefore, in my opinion such amounts or jotting of figures cannot be treated as Revenue Receipts, rather they can be ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report dated 05/03/2012 as well as submissions of the A.R. I have also gone through the facts mentioned in original impounded papers and from there I observed that advances of Rs.3,16,92,383/- and Rs.6,46,21,024/- pertains to AY 2007-08 and AY 2009-10 respectively and cannot be considered in the A.Y.2008-2009. Even otherwise this amount is in the nature of advance from the customers which is liability and cannot be taxed. Therefore keeping the principles of natural justice in mind, I hereby order that additions pertaining to alleged cash advances of Rs.3,16,92,383/- and Rs.6,46,21,024/- of AY 2007-08 and AY 2009-10 respectively should be deleted from AY 2008-09. Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to delete amounts of Rs.3,16,92,383/- and Rs.6,46,21,024/ 15.5.3. I have further considered the stand token by the A.O. In the letter dated 18/08/2011, 11/11/2011, second remand report dated 05/03/2012 as well as submissions of the A.R. I have also gone through the facts mentioned In impounded papers and from there I observed that Rs.1,34,93,471/ forming part of A-1 (Vasai) is in the nature of duplication entries. Therefore keeping the principles of natural justice in mind I come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.5.5.2 That, the working of amount of Rs. 37,87,96,697/- by the A.O in Second Remand Report (Also refer Second page para 4 of First Remand Report and the last page of para 4of Second Remand Report) were not appearing in impounded books, and the same was taken by AO merely on the basis of balancing figure of amount receivable and received. However, whatever has not been received cannot be taxed. Therefore, the proposal of the A.O in the second Remand Report to consider the above amount in calculation and working for the enhancement, cannot be accepted and, therefore, is rejected. 15.5.5.3 That, amount of Rs. 66,64,617/- (refer para 4 page 2 of the First Remand Report where the A.O. did not consider the same for any addition) and also were not appearing in impounded books. Further, in the Second Remand Report the A.O. has proposed to include the amount in enhancement, cannot be accepted because the same has been taken by AO now merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The Income Tax Act, 1961 does not deal with taxing of such illusionary amount. Therefore, the proposal of the A.0 in the second Remand Report to consider the above amount in calculation and working for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,877,221/- has been deleted for the reason that advances are received from the customer, is less than the total amount shown by the assessee as received advance in the books of accounts and therefore to that extent the addition also deserves to be deleted. Furthermore it is apparent that the impounded material did show the agreed value of the consideration as well as the amount received against that consideration. The balance of this sum is naturally not received by the assessee and therefore it could not have been considered as income of the assessee as the same has not been received at all. Such is the case with respect to the sum of ₹ 79,393,324 with respect to annexure A 8 , ₹ 1,317,910/ pertaining to annexure A 9 and 18,02,252/ pertaining to annexure A 10 of Kandivali project. Further ₹ 378,796,697 as mentioned in the second remand report clearly shows that this amount is not appearing in any of the impounded material, same has been included by the learned assessing officer on the basis of the balancing figure of the amount receivable, and amount received. Therefore if the amount is not received and is merely a balancing figure, the same could not ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port obtained from the learned assessing officer and the rejoinder of the assessee. It is further to be considered that in the second remand report the learned CIT A has given a categorical direction to the learned assessing officer to examine particular aspect with respect to each of the items appearing in the impounded material. The learned assessing officer on examination of the impounded material came with the finding that the total addition should have been of ₹ 751,981,580 however out of which the sum of ₹ 748,451,911/ is required to be excluded for the respective reasons as stated above. Therefore, it is apparent from the order of the learned CIT A that he has not gone by the addition made in the assessment order of ₹ 619,105,369/ but he has considered the amount of addition required to be made as per the learned assessing officer as per the first remand report amounting to ₹ 751,981,580/ . Out of this, he has given a detailed explanation for deleting the addition of sum of ₹ 748,451,911/ and he sustained the addition of ₹ 9,136,813/- which is higher than the balance amount of ₹ 35,29,669/- (75,19,81,580 -74,84,51,911). The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice u/s 143 (2) of The Act was issued by the Income tax Officer. Identical issue arose before the honourable Bombay High Court in case of Ashok Devichand Jain where in it held as under :- 2. The primary ground that has been raised is that the Income Tax Officer who issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, had no jurisdiction to issue such notice. According to Petitioner as per instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31st January, 2011 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, where income declared/returned by any Non-Corporate assessee is up to Rs. 20 lakhs, then the jurisdiction will be of ITO and where the income declared returned by a Non Corporate assessee is above Rs. 20 lakhs, the jurisdiction will be of DC/AC. 3. Petitioner has filed return of income of about Rs. 64,34,663/- and therefore, the jurisdiction will be that of DC/AC and not ITO. Mr. Jain submitted that since notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by ITO, and not by DC/AC that is by a person who did not have any jurisdiction over Petitioner, such notice was bad on the count of having been issued by an officer who had no authority in law to issue such notice. 4. We have considered the aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned assessing officer u/s 144 of the income tax act dated 28/12/2010. 038. The learned assessing officer has also filed an appeal in ITA number 1100/M/2013 for assessment year 2008 09 which is consequential in nature filed against the rectification order u/s 154 passed by the learned CIT A squarely covered in the appeal of the learned AO for assessment year 2008 09 in the above appeal in ITA number 4123/M/2012. Therefore, the appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 039. Accordingly both the appeals for assessment year 2008 2009 filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 123/M/2012 and 1100/M/13 are dismissed. Assessment year 2007 08 040. The learned assessing officer for assessment year 2007 08 where the only grievance is deletion of the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 488,67,850/ . The cost of repetition, return of-income was filed on 5/2/2008 at Rs. Nil. During the course of assessment proceedings the learned assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 48,867,846/ stating that the above amount is received in cash by the assessee is only money which are not recorded in the books of account and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re there and again which is not in regular manner and which again clearly shows that these were rough notings reflecting certain projects against which certain amounts were likely to be received and out of which part of the amounts were received and which again was merely an advance/booking amounts and not any Final Sale amount which can be considered for taxation. Therefore, in my opinion such amounts or jotting of figures cannot be treated as Revenue Receipts, rather they can be termed as liabilities and, therefore, not taxable at this juncture. 5.2. On verification of the impounded papers, it is found that amount of Rs.14,18,000/- comprises of bank balance while sum of Rs. 4,95,000/ represents the total of number of notes along with denominations counted by the appellant. Therefore in no case the same can be considered as cash receipt. Consequently, the AO is directed to delete the additions of Rs. 14,18,000/- and Rs 4,95,000/-. 5.3. On verification of the impounded papers by me I found that in respect of Gala No 11/102 the appellant has actually received only Rs.11,000/- and the same has been taken by the Ld. Assessing officer by adding two zeros in the said amount. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,850/ . On careful consideration we find that the assessee has shown advances of Rs. 1,56,09,472/ in its books of accounts Under the head advance received from customers. Therefore, it is apparent that the amount has already been recorded in the books of accounts the addition has been correctly deleted by the learned CIT A. The amount of ₹ 1,418,000/ was found to be the bank balances and Rs. 495,000/ is cash on hand. Both the items are related to regular books of accounts and therefore there could not have been added as undisclosed income of the assessee which is rightly deleted by the learned CIT A. Secondly, a sum of ₹ 11,000/ written in the seized material, have been extrapolated by the learned AO by adding 2 zeros in making at ₹ 11 lakhs. We find that such extrapolation is unwarranted unless it is mentioned in the impounded material. There is no mention of such extrapolation in the impounded material and therefore the addition to the extent of ₹ 11 lakhs could not have been made and therefore same is deleted by the learned CIT A the addition to the extent of ₹ 11,000/ is sustained. Further a sum of ₹ 1,751,440/ is not reflected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is shown. Thus merely because the assessee has mentioned it to be a bank transaction, it cannot be deleted. Therefore the learned CIT A has deleted this addition only on the expression of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to show before the learned assessing officer with respect to the above two entries whether they are recorded in the books of accounts through cheque in the books of the assessee on and if they are related to some other party, the assessee should give name and address of those parties to the learned assessing officer for examination determine that those are not unaccounted receipts of the assessee. 048. In the result, the solitary ground raised by the learned assessing officer with respect to the addition of ₹ 48,867,850/ is partly allowed. 049. The second ground raised in the appeal of the learned assessing officer is merely academic in nature as assessee does not have any turnover. Therefore ground number 2 is dismissed. 050. Accordingly appeal of the learned AO for assessment year 2007 08 in ITA number 4124/M/2012 is partly allowed. 051. Now we come to the rule 27 in by the assessee during the course of hearing before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey were in violation of the above instruction following the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court. Similarly we also as the order of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 10. 057. However for the completeness of the appeal, the controversy in old in this appeal has been decided by the learned CIT A as Under:- 5. Ground no.3. On the facts in the circumstances of the case the Id Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.3,24,78.230/- without understanding the facts circumstances of the case the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong contrary to the provisions of the Income tax Act the rules made there under. 5.1 Briefly the case of AO is that: The assessee has declared undisclosed income of Rs.3,35.58,200/- during the survey conducted on 16-10-2008. By this time the almost half of the financial year relevant to the AY 2009-10 was over and the assessee was in a position to ascertain the profits for AY 2009-10. He has made disclosure of undisclosed income on oath based on the cash receipts found during the survey which has also been impounded. Income disclosed would be after deducting all expenses to earn such inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not acceptable as the ledgers, P L A/c and the Balance sheet is prepared in such a way which is not common prevailing in the construction business. 5.2 During the appellate proceedings, Shri Jayesh Kala, CA authorized representative of the appellant attended and filed the written submissions which is reproduced hereunder: The Ld. Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts made the addition of Rs. 3,35,58,200/- on the basis of declaration made by the appellant at the time of survey. However, your Honor shall appreciate that such declaration was made on 16/10/2008 i.e. at the middle of the assessment year 2008-09 and the appellant not being the technical person was not in the position to judge as to what would be his income for the assessment year under review estimated its gross receipts at Rs 3,35,58,200/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer merely acted on only one ground i.e., he made the addition on the basis of declaration made by the appellant at the time of survey by ignoring all the factual evidences on record. The Id. Assessing Officer interpreted the word income used by the appellant at the time of survey in the literal sense and made the addition. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; used in section 133A(3)(iii) viz. record the statement of any person, which may be useful for or relevant to, any proceeding under the Act makes it clear that the material collected and statement recorded during the Survey u/s 133A are not conclusive piece of evidences by itself Further, the appellant also relies on the decisions given in the following cases The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Unitex Products Ltd V ITO (22 SOT 429) held that during the course of survey, the officer can record the statement of a person under sub section 3 (iii) of section 133 A, this sub section authorizes the income tax authority to record the statement of any person which may be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the Act, however the officer is not authorized to record the statement on oath and hence the statement taken during the course of survey has no evidentiary value. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dy CIT VIS Premsons (130 TTJ 159) held that no addition can be made or sustained simply on the basis of statement recorded at time of survey/ search; in order to make an addition on basis of surrender during search or survey, it is qua non that there should be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the books of accounts produced by the assessee during assessment proceedings under section 145(3) of the Act and other primary records in the form of purchase bills, vouchers etc solely on the ground that the assessee had made confessional statement during survey proceedings. The Assessing Officer had completely ignored the fact the accounts of the appellant have been audited under the section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all the expenses debited to P/L account have been duly verified and certified by the auditors. Further, all the expenses incurred are supported with proper documentation. Further the AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts without appreciating the fact that the books of accounts have been duly audited the return of income have been filed within the time allowed as per the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Moresoever if he was not satisfied with the books of accounts he should have conducted an enquiry in order to point out that there was any discrepancies in books of accounts. The Income Tax Act, 1961 has also given sufficient powers to AO to conduct enquiry in order to find out any discrepancies in books of accounts. On perusal of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown as net profit based on this assessee filed return of income at ₹ 1,079,970/ . The AO questioned that when the assessee has already shown the income of ₹ 33,558,200/ as unaccounted income which is also been credited to the profit and loss account, how the returned income would be merely ₹ 1,079,970. The assessee submitted that that the amount is shown as the advance received in the balance sheet. The AO rejected the above contention because the total advance loan by the assessee were with respect to the two projects and advance received from Pelhar Phase V was not specifically stated however the advance received from the above project was shown as ₹ 228,690,003 and 41. The assessee submitted that with respect to the other two project, those were scrapped and advances received have been paid back. As according to the assessing officer the advances of ₹ 284,907,232/shown by the assessee may not have included the above sum disclosed by the assessee as unaccounted income of ₹ 33,558,200/ , he made the addition of the sum. The learned CIT A deleted the same. The learned CIT appeal held that the assessee has already included the above sum as an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
