TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in the present case - Decided against revenue. Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 40A - cash expenditure in violation to the provisions of sections 40A(3)/40A(3A) ascertained by the Special Auditors - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO, while making the impugned additions on account of disallowance u/s. 40A(3)/ 40A(3A) of the Act in the assessment years under consideration, has not made any single reference to any incriminating material found during the course of the search. Before us, CIT (DR) has also not brought on record any single incriminating material on the basis whereof the additions have been made by the AO in the assessment order for the years under consideration. We find that the years under appeals are non-abated assessment years. It is a settled proposition of law that addition in non-abated assessment years can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. We find support from the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla [ 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein held that completed assessments can be interfered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to the Special Auditors u/s. 142(2A) of the Act. Thus, the findings given by the AO that the assessee had not produced books of account, in our view, are not factually correct. From financial statements, we did not find claiming of any expenditure by way of interest on share capital as presumed by the AO on the basis of the seized document. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that merely for the purpose of computing the opportunity cost of investment in the assessee company, computation of interest was made on notional basis and from such computation itself, it cannot be conclusively held that such interest expenditure were actually incurred or paid by the assessee company to various shareholders. In view of such finding, we find absolutely no justification in the action of the ld. AO in making the addition in the assessee s income on account of interest on capital and accordingly no interference is called for in the finding of Ld.CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. Suppression of profit for A.Y. 2012-13 - CIT(A) deleted the addition partly - CIT(A) has applied net profit rate of 1.5% of suppressed sales and has confirmed the addition partly - assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that such expenditure were incurred by the asseseee company itself. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition - Decided against revenue. - SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING For the Appellant : S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg Arpit Gaur, CAs For the Respondent : Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR ORDER PER BENCH: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the Revenue are directed against the Common Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal (in short CIT(A) ), dated 01.11.2019, which is arising out of the Common Assessment Order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) dated 13.08.2018 passed by the ACIT (Central) -I, Bhopal. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also duly accepted by the Ld. Departmental Representative that the issues raised in these appeals are common and inter-linked and as also, are arising out of the similar facts, for the sake of convenience and brevity, all these appeals were heard together on the request of both the parties and are being disposed off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s mentioned in the remand report and in accepting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appeal proceedings, without furnishing any proper justification or identifying the circumstances which have hindered the assessee to comply during assessment proceedings, as laid down in rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,98,830/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses u/s. 40A(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,60,043/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses u/s. 40A(3A) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,44,86,020/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income 5. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,63,950/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income 3.1 The b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in A.Y. 2014-15 on account of illegal expenditure recorded in the books of ABC Ltd. (para 15), Rs.6,25,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12, Rs.43,807/- in A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.8,98,830/- in A.Y. 2014-15 on account of disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act (Para 16), Rs.51,57,732/- in A.Y. 2014-15 on account of undisclosed transactions found recorded in the books of ABC Ltd. (Para 19), Rs.4,17,36,813/- in A.Y. 2011-12 on account of undisclosed expenditure in the form of Interest on capital (Para 20) and Rs.6,83,760/- in A.Y. 2012-13, Rs.6,95,276/- in A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs.10,60,043/- in A.Y. 2014-15 on account of disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act (Para 22). 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred separate appeals for the subject assessment years under consideration before Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), vide his common Order dated 01.11.2019 adjudicated the appeals of the assessee thereby giving substantial relief and also confirming certain additions for the assessment years under consideration. 5. We have been given to understand by both the parties that the appeals filed by the assessee against the Order of the ld. CIT(A) have got dismissed being withdrawn as the assessee had opted for Direct Tax Vivad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and page no. 115 to 120 of Paper Book for A.Y. 2014-15. 1.04 Your Honours, the AO has been given the due opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) and the AO had duly verified the additional evidences so furnished by the assessee company and only thereafter, the remand report has been submitted by him before the ld. CIT(A). It is submitted that by furnishing the additional evidences by the assessee, no loss has caused to the revenue. Thus, the ground so raised by the revenue for acceptance of additional evidences for all the assessment years under consideration may kindly be dismissed. E. Key Papers filed in the Paper Book (A.Y. 2012-13) on which the assessee wish to place reliance: S. No. Description of the document Page No. Remarks 1 Copy of Remand Report dated 25-06-2019 submitted by the AO for A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2012-13 73-78 (AY 2012-13) - 2 Copy of Remand Report dated 27-06-2019 submitted by the AO for A.Y. 2014-15 115-120 (AY 2014-15) - 8.4 Before us, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances, carefully gone through the orders of lower authorities and written and oral submissions made from both the sides. We find merit that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not get sufficient opportunity to furnish various documentary evidences in defense of its case. We find that the documents were duly furnished by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) in accordance with the rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In our considered view, the CIT(A) has coterminious power with that of an AO and if considering the genuine hardship of the assessee in furnishing the documentary evidences before the AO, for meeting the ends of the justice, CIT(A) would be well within his power to admit the evidences as additional evidences in accordance with the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, whenever any additional evidences are admitted, the CIT(A) is duty bound to provide a copy of such additional evidences to the AO so that the AO after making further inquiry can make his comments on such evidences by way of a Remand Report. We find that in the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) has not only forwarded the additional evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs.10,60,043/- in A.Y. 2014-15 on account of disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act (Para 22). 10.3 Aggrieved with the Order of Assessment, the assessee preferred separate appeals for the subject assessment years before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of the first appellate proceedings, the assessee made detailed written submissions along with the documentary evidences. During the course of the appellate proceedings, Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee also furnished certain documents, as additional evidences under Rule 46A which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for comments. The copy of the Remand Report of the AO was provided by the ld. CIT(A) to the assessee and in response, the assessee filed its rejoinder. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the remand report of the AO as well as the rejoinder of the assessee, deleted the entire additions made by the AO on this count. While deleting the additions for various assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) held that some of the cash payments were made by the assessee to the labours and the contractors under compulsion as they had went on strike asking for immediate payments. The ld. CIT(A) also found that some of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... financial crunch faced by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant in these exceptional circumstances or say due to these circumstances the appellant was forced to make payment in cash over and above Rs. 20,000/- as per section 40A(3) and has violated the provisons of the said section. Thus the identity of the contractor, the genuineness of the transaction and the exceptional circumstances warranting cash payment in the interest of business are duly established. Now the only issue which remains for adjudication is whether a genuine recorded transaction undertaken in cash in the best interest of the business and otherwise allowable can be disallowed only on a mere technical default . Reference in this regards is made to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO 59 taxmann.com 11 wherein the object of insertion of section 40A(3) and rule 6DD was explained by the Hon ble Court as under: The terms of section 40A (3) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. The genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section. It is open to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the instant case. Therefore, being a case of genuine business transaction, no disallowance is called for by invoking the provisions of section 40A (3) of the Act. In the case of the assessee the genuineness of the payments are free from doubt and there is no attempt made by the assessee for evasion of any of its tax liability by making payment in cash and accordingly respecting the judgments of the various courts mentioned above the addition made of Rs. 2,50,000/- is directed to be deleted . (ii) Payments made to Shri Anilesh Tomar:- The appellant has strongly contended that a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- has been received from Shri Anilesh Tomar against sale of car by the appellant company. However, the said car was not sold to Shri Anilesh Tomar, therefore, amount received from Shri Anilesh Tomar was returned back on 05.01.2011. In support appellant has also filed copy of ledger account of Shri Anilesh Tomar. Appellant by taking alternative plea stated that no claim has been made u/s 67 or under any other provision of law. On perusal of copy of ledger account of Shri Anilesh Tomar it is evident that sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- has been receive by appellant on 30.11.2010 and sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is clearly missing in the instant case. Therefore, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 43,807/- is deleted. (ii) Payment made to Shri Yogesh Bottlewala:- The appellant during the course of appellate proceedings submitted that none of the payment was made over Rs. 20,000/-. On perusal of copy of ledger account scanned by AO on page no 134 in the body of assessment order it is abundantly clear that none of the payment was made in violation to provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. Hon ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of S R C Aviation P Ltd vs DCIT (2012) 13 ITR 600 (Del Trib) has held that where in any case the payments made in cash were less than the limit prescribed u/40A(3) and the same facts has been accepted/confirmed by the other party accepting such payment, then no disallowance can be made under the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 6,83,760/- is deleted. (e) Assessment Year 2014-15:- On perusal of written submissions filed by the appellant, it has been observed that the appellant has made cash payment of (i) Rs.6,07,460/- to Shri R S Bhadoriya, (ii) Rs. 55,000/- to Shri Ritesh Raghuvanshi on 25.10.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has also filed copies of tour bills of Shri Rakesh Goswami. On perusal of the copies of tour bills it is observed that the bills include expenses of stay, food, transportation and mobile bills and are below the threshold limit of Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 55,000/- is deleted (iv) Payment towards freight expenses:-The appellant during the course of appellate proceedings has submitted that payment of Rs. 1,00,800/- has been made to M/s Iarl Logistcs against three different freight invoices for transport of its goods from the factory premises at Maksi to Deharadun Excise Depot. The payments were made on three different dates, however, the invoices were submitted on a later date. In support appellant has filed copies of invoices dated 06.01.2014, 07.01.2014 08.01.2014 amounting to Rs. 33,600/- each. On perusal of copy of these invoices it is clear that the provisions of section 40A(3A) are not attracted and therefore, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,00,800/- is deleted. (v) Payments made towards purchase of civil item:- The appellant before me has taken a plea that sum of Rs. 50,370/- has been spent on civil constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned AO on account of disallowance of expenses paid in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- by invoking the provisions of s.40A(3) of the Act, suffers from the legal deficiency inasmuch such addition has been made by the learned AO merely on the basis of entries found recorded in the regular books of account by the Special Auditors. It is submitted that on the date of initiation of the search under s. 132, no assessment proceeding was pending in respect of the assessment year under consideration and therefore, without having recourse to any seized incriminating document or material, no addition can be made in respect of the discrepancies found in the books of account of the assessee. 2.00 Your Honours, it is submitted that subject addition of Rs.6,25,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12, appears to have been made by the ld. AO on the basis of findings given by the special auditors in his report submitted under s. 142(2A) of the Act. During the course of the special audit, the special auditor went through the tally ledger account of the assessee company and from such tally ledger account only, the special auditors noticed that the assessee had made cash payments exceeding a sum of Rs.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17-01- 2011, the assessee company made payment to the aforesaid contractor through cash and such payment too was made under the compelling circumstances. It is submitted that due to liquidity crunch, the assessee company was not keeping itself regular in making payment of dues to the contractor and in turn, the contractor was also not keeping regular in making payment to the workers. In such circumstances, all of a sudden, on 17-01-2011, the workers of the factory went on a strike demanding their dues from the contractor. In turn, the contractor demanded its money from the assessee company. As due to strike by the workers, the entire production had got at a halt, the assessee company, as a prudent businessman, opted to make partial payment to workers by way of making cash payment to the contractor. It shall thus be appreciated by Your Honours that the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- was made by the assessee company under a business compulsion and therefore, the same was allowable under s. 40A(3) of the Act read with rule 6DD of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962. 3.03 Your Honours, in order to substantiate the aforesaid claim of the assessee, we have furnished a copy of labour payment state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of s.40A(3) by the assessee company [Refer PB Page No. 102]. Such fact speaks in volume to the effect that there was no violation on the part of the assessee company in complying with the provisions of s.40A(3). 6.00 Your Honours, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as written and oral submissions made by the assessee on the subject issue, Remand Report of the AO and Rejoinder of the assessee, has deleted the entire addition made by the AO on the subject issue. As against the relief so granted by the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before this Hon ble Bench . In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the addition of Rs.6,25,000/- so made by the learned AO by invoking the provisions of s.40A(3) of the Act was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the action of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld by this Hon ble Bench. FOR A.Y. 2012-13: 1.00 Your Honours, at the outset, it is submitted that impugned additions of Rs.43,807/- and Rs.6,83,760/- made by the learned AO on account of disallowance of expenses paid in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- by invoking the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng maintenance expenses and the same had been recorded in the books of account by passing only one consolidated single entry by the accountant. However, the subject cash payment of Rs.43,807/- was actually paid by the assessee company in respect of various expenses to different persons on the same day and thus, the provisions of section 40A(3) does not attract. A summary of such expenses along with the details of relevant documentary evidence is being given in a tabular form as under: S. No. Particulars Amount Documentary Evidence (Invoice) 1. Payment made to Rajpal Car Decor for Vehicle Repairing 23,164 A-5.01 [PB Page no. 59 60] 2. Payment made to Bharmal Glass House for Glass purchase 5,250 A-5.02 [PB Page no.61] 3. Payment made to Tyre Tune UP for Vehicle Repairing (Labour) 250 A-5.03 [PB Page no.62] 4. Payment made to R.R. Tyreage Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of tyre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, it is further submitted that the assessee had maintained regular books of account in its ordinary course of business and such books of account were subject to audit under the provisions of s.44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a firm of qualified chartered accountants, who after scrutinizing such books comprising of bills, vouchers and ledgers, in depth, as per the requirements of Income Tax Law has duly issued an unqualified Tax-Audit report to the assessee company. A copy of such Tax Audit Report is placed at page no. 25 to 38 of our paper book. Your Honour, the Tax-auditor s at clause no. 17(h) of the tax audit report has issued a clean report for compliance of the provisions of s.40A(3) by the assessee company [Refer PB Page No. 28]. Such fact speaks in volume to the effect that there was no violation on the part of the assessee company in complying with the provisions of s.40A(3). 7.00 Your Honours, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as written and oral submissions made by the assessee on the subject issue, Remand Report of the AO and Rejoinder of the assessee, has deleted the entire addition made by the AO on the subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of s.40A(3). In response to the aforesaid query, the assessee made its necessary detailed explanation with relevant documentary evidences. However, the ld. AO, only partially accepted the explanation of the assessee company, thereby rejecting the explanation of the assessee company in respect of the payments of Rs.8,98,830/- and Rs.10,60,043/- made by the assessee to different persons, as per the details given below : (Amount in Rs.) S. No. Particulars Date of Payment Amount I. Payment made for expenses 1. Payment made to Shri R.S. Bhadoriya 01-04-2013 1,30,660 31-05-2013 3,55,000 01-06-2013 1,21,800 Sub-Total (1) 6,07,460 2. Payment made to Shri Ritesh Raghuvanshi for salary 25-10-2013 55,000 3. Payment made to Shri Rakesh Goswami for salary 25-10-2013 55,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee company and the subject payments of Rs.55,000/- are in nature of imprest money payment to such marketing employees to bear their tour travelling expenses in respect of lodging, boarding and stay. 3.02.1 Your Honours, as against the imprest payments, as aforesaid, the employees Shri Ritesh Raghuvanshi and Shri Rakesh Goswami had actually incurred expenses amounting to Rs.45,634/- and Rs.43,474/- respectively. Further, the residual imprest money of Rs.9,366/- and Rs.11,526/- respectively had been adjusted towards their salary for the respective period. It is submitted that the actual expenses as incurred by them on tour were below the threshold limit of Rs.20,000/-. In evidence of the same we have furnished a statement as prepared by the aforesaid employees mentioning the details of the expenses, which is placed at PB Page no. 86 to 91. 3.03 Your Honours, as regard the cash payment of Rs.1,00,800/- serialized at S. No.4 of the table above, it is submitted that the aforesaid payment was made to M/s. Iarl Logistics by the assessee against three different freight invoices for transport of its goods from the factory premises situated at Maksi to Deharadun Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assign any single basis for her such assumption or allegation. She could not bring on record, either by way of conducting necessary enquiry from the payees or by any other means, any material to disprove the claim of the assessee that it had made payment to the extent of a sum of Rs.20,000/- only to the payee on different dates. It is submitted that since the payee was not inclined to accept the payment through banking channel, the assessee, instead of making the lump-sum payment, made the payment to the extent of the sum permissible as per law, in accordance with the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. It is submitted that the law does not prohibit any person to make payment of any sum to the extent of Rs.20,000/- in cash to a person on different dates instead of making a lump-sum payment. 5.00 Your Honours, it is further submitted that the assessee had maintained regular books of account in its ordinary course of business and such books of account were subject to audit under the provisions of s.44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a firm of qualified chartered accountants, who after scrutinizing such books comprising of bills, vouchers and ledgers, in depth, as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. A.Y. 1 Copy of Abstract of Special Auditor s report giving the details of alleged cash payments exceeding a sum of Rs.20,000/- 219 A.Y. 2011-12 2 Copy of ledger account of Shree Balaji Bottling Co. in the books of account of the assessee company for the F.Y. 2010-11 220 A.Y. 2011-12 3 Copy of labour payment statement evidencing payment of wages to various workers 221-223 A.Y. 2011-12 4 Copy of ledger account of Anilesh Tomar in the books of account of the assessee company for the F.Y. 2010- 11 224 A.Y. 2011-12 5 Xerox copies of invoices aggregating to a sum of Rs.43,807/- in respect of payments made against vehicle running maintenance expenses 59-65 A.Y. 2012-13 6 Copies of statements showing details of expenses incurred against the Imprest payment of Rs.6,07,460/- as submitted by Shri R.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A(3)/40A(3A) were made by the AO only on the basis of the report submitted by the Special Auditors u/s. 142(2A) of the Act from the examination of the regular audited books of account. Thus, according to the counsel of the assessee, such additions being not based upon any incriminating material or evidence found during the course of the search, the same were liable to be deleted in view of the decisions of the various Courts, especially the cases of CIT vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.), Jai Steel (India) vs. CIT (2013) 259 CTR 281 (Raj.), Income Tax v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [2015] 58 Taxmann.Com 78 (Bom), Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj.) and Kalani Brothers in IT(SS)A No. 71/Ind/2014 (ITAT Indore). 11.1 We have heard rival contentions, perused the records placed before us, duly considered the facts and circumstances, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below, Special Auditors Report, written and oral submissions made from both the sides and also gone through the judgments and decisions referred to and relied upon by both the sides. 11.2 We find that the AO, while making the impugned additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material. v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. 11.4 The above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. In. all these cases no assessments were pending on the date of search for these assessment years. No assessments were abated in terms of second proviso to section 153A of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High / Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has considered various High Court decisions relied upon by the learned DR. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered the cases of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCfT; Madugula vs. DCIT; CIT vs. Chetandas Laxmandas and CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra). The only decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora; 367 ITR 517 relied on by the learned DR was not considered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the issue in the case of Kabul Chawla. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has reversed the order of the Tribunal and remanded the issue to the Tribunal to consider the appeal of the department on merits. It is a settled legal position that when two views are possible on a particulars issue then the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Satish Neema IT(SS)A No.149/Ind/2016 dated 07.02.2020. Ld. DR failed to bring any other binding precedence in its favour. We, therefore, respectfully following the above referred decisions allow the legal ground raised by the assessee and delete the impugned addition. 11.7 Thus, respectfully following the settled judicial precedence which are squarely applicable on the instant issue, we are of the view that no addition could have been made by the AO in the assessee s income in a completed year of assessment without having recourse to any incriminating material. We find full substance in the legal plea taken by the assessee that all the assessment years under appeal are those in respect of which no assessment proceedings could be said to be pending on the date of initiation of the search in the case of the assessee on 07/01/2016 and therefore, merely on the basis of entries found recorded in the regular audited books of account of the assessee, no addition could have been made for making disallowance u/s. 40A(3)/40A(3A) of the Act. We are also of the view that in respect of unaccounted transactions, since the assessee itself is not claiming any deduction or allowance, the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the relevant previous year, the assessee had not accepted any fresh share capital and the entire funds were obtained prior to 31/03/2009 as is evident from the seized document itself. The AO made inquiry in respect of the investing companies and found that these companies were only operating for name sake without any fixed asset and business premises. Finally, vide para (20.4) of the Order, the AO made an addition of Rs. 4,17,36,813/- in the assessee s income on account of unexplained expenditure of the assessee in capital. 12.3 Aggrieved with the Order of Assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal for the subject assessment year before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of the first appellate proceedings, the assessee made detailed written submissions along with the documentary evidences which were also furnished by it before the AO. The ld. CIT(A), while giving his findings at para (4.5.2) of his Order, noted that the subject seized loose paper pertains to period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2009 and are carried forward till 31.03.2011. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the share capital was introduced between F.Y. 2006-07 (A.Y. 2007-08) to F.Y. 2008-09 (A.Y. 2009-10) which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prepared in respect of our company. It is submitted that in the subject loose paper, some details regarding capital employed and interest have been given. Madam, on a careful examination of such excel sheet, we have noted that the excel sheet was prepared to have an analysis of the estimated return on proposed investment in the company. As regard, allegation made by your good self regarding undisclosed income in the form share capital introduced through shell company of Rs.8,59,82,700/-, it is submitted that the entire share capital from four companies namely, Premier Forests India Pvt. Ltd. [1,28,35,000], Calcutta Developers Pvt. Ltd. [55,00,000], Royal Highland Distilleries Ltd. [5,12,54,974] and Lord Krishna [1,63,92,726] were genuinely taken by our company before 31-03-2009. In other words, these share capital were not taken during the periods under assessment viz. A.Y. 2010- 11 to A.Y. 2016-17. Our such assertion is evident from the copy of your Annexure G-1 itself in which there is mention of two periods i.e. one from 01-04-2006 to 31- 03-2009 and another from 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2011. Further, against the name of every shareholder/share applicant, the position o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A(3) of the Act and such a finding could have not been given by the learned AO without first going through the books of account of the assessee. Even otherwise, it is submitted that a negative aspect i.e. non-incurrence of certain expenditure could not have been established by the assessee from its books of account. It is submitted that only if the assessee would have actually incurred such expenditure and claimed the same then only, he could have prove such claim with the assistance of books of account, which is not a case here. 4.01 Your Honours, as regard the second basis taken by the learned AO for making the impugned addition i.e. the assessee could not produce any positive evidence to establish that interest expenses were not actually incurred, again, it is submitted that the law does not pre-suppose an assessee to establish a nonexisting or a negative fact. The assessee by making its written explanation as aforesaid had denied to have made any payment of interest expenditure as alleged and by its denial it had discharged its initial onus. Thereafter, the onus had got shifted to the learned AO and it was the learned AO who was required to establish with any positive evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid by the assessee company during the relevant previous year so as to attract the provisions of section 69C or any other deeming provisions of the Act. It is submitted that by any stretch of imagination, the actual payment of interest computed up till 31-03-2011 could not have been supposed to be made during the financial year 2010-11 itself. So, even on this count, no addition on the allegation of unexplained expenditure could have been made for the assessment year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12. 7.00 Your Honours, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as written and oral submissions made by the assessee on the subject issue, Remand Report of the AO and Rejoinder of the assessee, has deleted the entire addition made by the AO on the subject issue. As against the relief so granted by the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before this Hon ble Bench. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned addition of Rs.4,17,36,813/- on the allegation of unexplained interest expenditure, was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the action of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld by this Hon ble Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had actually incurred such expenses and such expenses were also claimed by it in its books of account. For reaching such conclusion, the AO took a stand that no books of accounts were produced and therefore, whether or not such expenses have been claimed by the assessee in its books of accounts could not be verified at her end. According to the AO, the assessee has claimed such interest expenditure which are not allowable in the nature. However, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that first of all, the entire books of account in the soft copy were seized by the search party. Secondly, such books of account were duly produced before the Special Auditors and such production of books of account before the Special Auditors is evident from the various findings as regard to the cash payments etc. given by the Special Auditors which have been referred to by the AO in the body of the assessment order itself. Further, we find that without making a reference to the regular books of account, the same could not have been referred to the Special Auditors u/s. 142(2A) of the Act. Thus, the findings given by the AO that the assessee had not produced books of account, in our vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales purchase are not fully disclosed in audited books of account i.e. of M/s. Regent Beers and Wines Ltd. when compared with M/s. ABC Ltd. The AO prepared a table showing the comparative picture of both books of account, which is as under: Particulars As per Audited Accounts As per Incriminating Seized Data of ABC Ltd. Difference (Undisclosed profit) Sales 33,33,91,023.90 46,26,08,901.00 12,92,17,877.07 Purchase 24,74,04,599.90 30,88,90,859.60 6,14,86,259.64 Net Figure 6,77,31,617.43 During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO required the assessee to explain the transactions and reconcile the same with audited books of account. The assessee, in response, furnished its explanation, which has been reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) at page no. 86 of his Order. The assessee s explanation was not found acceptable to the AO and the AO made an addition of Rs.6,77,31,617/- in the assessee s in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defect or discrepancy in the maintenance of books of account of the assessee company. It shall be worthwhile to note that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee company had furnished a copy of the aforesaid Audit Reports before the learned AO and had also produced all its books of account, receipt books, bills, etc. before the learned AO for his verification. It is submitted that the learned AO has not found any defect or discrepancy in the books of account so maintained by the assessee company. Since no defect or discrepancy was found, the learned AO has not rejected the books of account of the assessee by invoking the provisions of s.145(3) of the Act. Now, it is submitted that once the books of account of the assessee were accepted, the learned AO was duty bound to determine the business income of the assessee only as per the transactions shown in its regular books of account, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) to section 145 of the Act. Consequently, without rejecting the books of account, the learned AO could not have made any addition in the assessee s income on this count. 2.00 For the aforesaid proposition, reliance is placed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance of ABC Ltd. vis- -vis audited balance sheet of our company as of 31-03-2012. On a perusal of such statement, it shall be appreciated by your good self, that as per such statement, the net profit before tax of our company as per ABC Ltd. trial balance works out to be at Rs.5,07,76,896/- vis- -vis the same shown in the audited Profit Loss account at Rs.1,98,37,220/-. In other words, even if the authenticity of the trial balance of ABC Ltd. is taken to be true, there would result difference of Rs.3,09,39,676/- only and not that of Rs.6,77,31,617/- as proposed at your end. We are submitting herewith a comparative statement showing variance between trial balance of ABC Ltd. vis- -vis audited balance sheet of our company as of 31-03- 2012, as Annexure D-3.00. 5.00 Your Honours, at the outset, it is submitted that the subject trial balance on the basis of which the impugned addition has been made does not pertain to the assessee company. 6.00 That, without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of beers, wines and other alcoholic products for human consumption. It is submitted that in any state, su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l balance, had drawn and furnished a statement of reconciliation showing the comparison of datas shown in the trial balance of ABC Ltd. vis- -vis audited financial statements of the assessee company. A copy of such statement is placed at PB Page no. 66 67. 7.02 Your Honours, on the basis of the above referred trial balance, it was demonstrated before the learned AO that there was not variance only between the figures of sales and purchases shown in such trial balance vis- -vis audited financial statements but there was also variance in the datas relating to the other items of profit and loss account. It was demonstrated that if the figures of the trial balance are taken to be correct then the net profit before depreciation and tax of the ABC Ltd. (presumingly of the assessee company), would work out at Rs.5,07,76,896/- only as against the same shown in the audited financial statements at Rs.1,98,37,220/-. It was thus submitted before the learned AO that even if, the authenticity of the seized trial balance is taken to be fully correct, for the relevant previous year there could have been a case of suppression of profit to the extent of Rs.3,09,39,676/- only and not that of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that undisputedly, the assessee had maintained two set of books of account as held by both the authorities below. But, we find that the major difference in both the set of books of account was qua the suppression of sales amounting to Rs. 12,92,17,877/- by the assessee in its regular books of account. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has applied net profit rate of 1.5% of suppressed sales and has confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 19,38,268/- out of the total additions of Rs. 6,77,31,670/- made by the AO. We find that while reaching to such finding, the ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 0610 and again in the case of Manmohan Sadhani vs. CIT, (2008) 304 ITR 52. The ld. CIT(A) has also placed reliance on the decision of the Cordinate Bench of Jabalpur in the case of M/s. Ramesh Chandra Ravindra Kumar Rai vs. ITO (2010) 14 ITJ 34, Hon ble ITAT Agra Bench in the case of ITO vs. Sh. Satyendra Singh Parmar (ITA No. 127/Agra/2017) and ITAT Jabalpur Bench in the case of Yadav Brothers Construction Company (ITA No. 109 110/JAB/2012). We are in agreement with the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,86,020/- in the assessee s income on account of undisclosed income being the difference in figures of capital and loans as per Tally data of ABC Ltd. and the audited accounts of the assessee. 16.3 Aggrieved with the Order of Assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal for the subject assessment year before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of the first appellate proceedings, the assessee made detailed written submissions along with the documentary evidences. The ld. CIT(A) while upholding that the assessee used to maintain two sets of books of account, observed that the differences in the figures of capital and loans were either due to the mis-recording/ mis-classification of transactions or non-recording thereof. The ld. CIT(A), after perusing the comparison furnished by the assessee in a tabular form, observed that the books of account of M/s. ABC Ltd. were not complete. The ld. CIT(A) also held that the AO has not made any independent enquiry to unearth the true facts. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) reached to a conclusion that the AO has made the addition merely on assumption, presumption and surmises. Finally, the ld. CIT(A) vide his findings given at para (4.11.3) to (4.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deliberated upon the difference between the figures shown in the trial balance of ABC Ltd. and that of the assessee company for two financial years relevant to A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2014-15. So far as the assessment year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 is concerned, the ld. AO, at the bottom most part of the sub-para (13.3), by making a huge addition of Rs. 8,44,86,020/- in the assessee s income, summarily rejected the explanation of the assessee on the sole basis that the assessee could not justify the existence of M/s. ABC Ltd. and also could not explain as to why the amount was not disclosed in its books of accounts. However, again, the ld. AO miserably failed to pin point any particular amount which was not so found recorded by her in the audited books of account of the assessee company. It shall thus be appreciated by Your Honour that such a huge addition has been made by the ld. AO without passing any speaking order and without giving any specific finding in this regard. 1.02 Your Honours, without commenting upon the working of the so called variation as alleged by the ld. AO and without commenting upon the merits of the addition, it is submitted that mere variat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34,689/- and Rs. 5,92,51,331/- respectively, under the heads capital and loans between those shown in the seized trial balance and the audited financial statements of the assessee for the relevant year under consideration are not factually correct. For our such assertion, a combined reference may be made to the trial balance of the ABC Ltd. as reproduced by the ld. AO at page no. 39 to 41 of the impugned order and the audited financial statements of the assessee company for the relevant previous year, as placed at page no. 62 to 81 of our Paper Book. 2.01 On a perusal of the trial balance of ABC Ltd. it shall be observed that in such trial balance the balance of Equity Share Capital has been shown to be at Rs. 20,00,00,000/- which gets fully tallied with the same shown in the audited financial statements (refer PB Page No. 70). However, undisputedly, there is a difference in the figures of Net Share Application Money shown in the trial balance at Rs. 82,04,974/- and that shown in the audited financial statements at Rs.3,67,04,974/-, thereby resulting in a difference of Rs. 2,85,00,000/-. In respect of such variation, it is submitted that while drawing the trial balance of ABC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had shown more liability then that shown in the seized datas. In such eventuality, it could have been presumed that the assessee had overstated its liability in its books of accounts or in other words, had introduced bogus liability and thereby, such a difference on account of overstated liability could have been presumed to be the undisclosed income of the assessee. However, in the instant case, the position is just reverse inasmuch the assessee in its audited books of accounts is showing lesser amount of liability i.e. at Rs.18,29,70,285/- than that shown in the seized trial balance at Rs.20,82,04,974/-. It is submitted that, our above said argument is only aimed to demonstrate the impact of the variation in the income of the assessee, however, factually, there exists no actual difference. It is reiterated that in the books of ABC Ltd., certain sum factually received as share application money, appears to have got wrongly classified as unsecured loans and further, some money, which actually could not be realized have also been shown in the books of ABC Ltd., as mentioned in the preceeding paras. It is submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sl. No. Particulars Trial Balance of ABC Ltd. data as on 31-03-2014 Trial Balance extracted from financial data of assessee company as on 31-03-2014 Amount of variation Reasons for variation (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)=(3)-(4) (6) A BANK OD (OBC BANK) 11,07,02,215 10,74,03,370 32,98,845 Entries regarding payment through cheque made to the bank on 31-03-2014 though recorded in the audited books of the assessee but not got recorded in the books of ABC Ltd. TOTAL (A) 11,07,02,215 10,74,03,370 32,98,845 B Secured Loans from Banks 1 ICICI Bank Ltd. (Eicher) 12,75,061 12,75,061 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Akash Shivhare (PAN:BBZPS9891L) 71,794 - 71,794 No such amount was factually received by the assessee company 6 Malwa Institute of Technology [MIT] (PAN:AAAAI0965M) 1,00,00,000 - 1,00,00,000 Wrong postings appear to have been made in the books of ABC Ltd. in the account of MIT. First of all, only a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- has been received from the MIT, and that too was received on account of share application money. Secondly, the posting of Rs.55,00,000/- wrongly made in the account of MIT in the books of ABC Ltd. whereas such sum was received from one M/s. Encords Enterprises Ltd. from which the assessee was owing a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- since opening. 7 Encord Commosales P. Ltd. [Share Application Money Account] (PAN: AACCE1193M) 1,95,00,000 - 1,95,00,000 Wrong classification made in the books of ABC Ltd.. The entire amount of Rs.1,95,00,000/- was received towards share application money only. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e trial balance of ABC Ltd. [refer page no.39 of the impugned assessment order], and that of Rs.34,66,97,723/- as appearing in the trial balance extracted from the tally data of the assessee company as on 31-03-2014 [refer PB Page no. 96]. 5.01.1 Your Honours, it is submitted that in the regular books of the assessee, necessary entries regarding depreciation on fixed assets, as per the relevant Companies Act have been made whereas in the books of ABC Ltd., the entries for depreciation have never been made. In other words, in the books of ABC Ltd. the fixed assets have been recorded at the gross value whereas in the books of the assessee, the fixed assets are recorded net of depreciation. It is submitted that because of this unique feature only, even a difference is getting reflected in the opening balances of fixed assets in both the books. It is submitted that alike, the closing balance, due to non-charging of depreciation in the books, the opening balance is also getting at a very substantial higher amount in the books of ABC Ltd.. It would be appreciated that in the trial balance of ABC Ltd., the depreciation for the relevant previous year is not getting appeared whereas t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of the assessment proceedings. We find that in the written submission, the assessee has furnished the details of various financial datas as per its audited balance sheet as of 31/03/2014 and also, as per the data according to the parallel book maintained with the title ABC Ltd. and the assessee himself has worked out the difference between two datas at Rs. 8,44,86,020/- which has been made subject matter of addition by the AO for A.Y. 2014-15. 17.2 We find that as per the comparative data, referred to hereinabove, datas have been given only in respect of liabilities and there is no data as regard to the assets or expenditure, for which the AO has given a finding at para (13.1.b) at page no. 38 that the difference was found to have been invested in Fixed Assets and undisclosed expenditure. Thus, in support of her finding that the assessee was found to have made any unaccounted investment in assets or had incurred any undisclosed expenditure, no material has been brought on record by the AO. From the comparative data, we find that total liabilities of the assessee as on 31/03/2014 as per its audited balance sheet and parallel books data were to the extent of Rs. 34,76,48,463 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed its explanation, which has been reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) at page no. 106 to 108 of his Order. However, the assessee s explanation was not found acceptable to the AO and the AO made an addition of Rs.51,57,732/- in the assessee s income on account of undisclosed transactions found recorded in the books of M/s. ABC Ltd.. 18.3 Aggrieved with the Order of Assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal for the subject assessment year before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of the first appellate proceedings, the assessee made detailed written submissions along with the documentary evidences. The ld. CIT(A) noted that out of the total addition of Rs.51,57,732/-, an addition of Rs.38,63,950/- was made on the basis of one excel sheet found from PC of Shri Harminder Singh Bhatia. The ld. CIT(A) further noted that the AO made addition to the tune of Rs.9,38,990/- on account of sale of scrap which are not recorded in regular books of account and the assessee could not furnish the details of receipt from scrap sale, TCS deducted etc. but, it was found that the scrap sales were duly recorded in books of account of M/s. ABC Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that another addition of Rs.3,54 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he annexure marked as Annexure F-7 which have been provided with the captioned notice by your good self. Madam, at the outset, it is reiterated that the incriminating seized tally data of ABC Ltd. has no credence, reliability and authenticity and, therefore, no adverse inference on the basis of such tally data deserves to be drawn against us. Without prejudice to the above, we wish to submit our explanation in respect of each and every item, contained in your aforesaid Annexure F-7, in a tabular form as under : Date Amount Description of the document seized Our Explanation Remarks / Annexure Apr 15 20,37,442/- Copy of ledger account of Scarp Glass sales in ABC Ltd. for the F.Y. 2015-16 The actual sales realization from scrap glass sales was to the extent of Rs.13,85,699/- only and not of Rs.20,37,442/- as alleged. A copy the ledger account of Scrap Glass sales in our regular books for the F.Y.2015-16, as Annexure D-8.01. Apr 15 21,36,019/- Copy of ledger ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded in books of account of our company. Copy of account of Pacific Alcobev Pvt. Ltd. in our regular books of account as Annexure D-8.04 Copy of relevant bank statement, as Annexure D-8.05 D-8.06 Mar-14 9,38,990/- Copy of sale of Scarp Glass sales account in ABC Ltd. for the F.Y. 2015-16 It appears that our mischievous staff made unaccounted sales and embezzled the same as discussed in reply to query No.7 (supra) 01-04- 2013 to 07-11- 2013 38,63,950/- Excel Sheet abstracted from the PC of Shri Harminder Singh Bhatia containing details of some cash payment to Viaks Jaiswal regarding Gokul Krishi Farm House, Barwah Our company is not having any farm house anywhere and we are not required to incur any expenditure relating to such farm house. 27-07- 2009 2,10,864/- Copy of sale of Scarp Glass sales account in our company s books during the F.Y. 2009-10 Transaction is duly recorded in our regular books Submitting, copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounting to Rs.5,94,997/- in its books of accounts. In evidence of the same we have furnished a copy of the ledger account of Scrap sales for the relevant previous year, which is placed at PB Page no.105. It submitted that on sale of such scrap material the assessee company had duly collected tax at source in accordance with the provisions of s.206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.5,951/- and had duly deposited the same to the credit of Central Government. In evidence of the same, we had submitted the challans as paid by the assessee , which are placed at PB Page no. 105 to 109. 3.03 Your Honours, now as regard the transaction of Rs.38,63,950/-, it is submitted that such addition has been made by the ld. AO on the basis of one computerized excel sheet seized and inventorized as LPS 10 Page nos.3 4. A copy of such computerized excel sheet has been provided by the learned AO in form of Annexure F-7.33 F-7.34 along with show cause notice dated 23-07- 2018. A copy of the same is placed at PB Page No. 110 111. 3.03.1 Your Honours, it is submitted that the aforesaid excel sheet is extracted from the laptop of Shri Harminder Singh Bhatia, neither belongs to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rized excel sheet seized and inventorized as LPS 10 Page nos.3 4. A copy of such computerized excel sheet has been filed by the assessee before us in his Paper Book for A.Y. 2014- 15 at Page No. 110 111. Before us, the assessee contended that such excel sheet was extracted from the laptop of Shri Harminder Singh Bhatia, one of the directors of the company, and not from the premises of the assessee company and such contention was not rebutted by the CIT(DR). From a perusal of the excel sheet, we find that it contains the details of some agricultural expenses in respect of some land at Mortaka and the sheet contains the caption as Gokul Krishi Farm House . We find that it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee company was holding any agriculture land at Mortaka and therefore, without having any other corroborative evidence, merely on the basis of such excel sheet, it could not have been conclusively held that such expenditure were incurred by the asseseee company itself. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,63,950/- in the income of the assessee on account of unaccounted cash payments. Resultantly, Ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
