TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd [ 2021 (4) TMI 162 - ITAT DELHI] Since Shri Bajrang Lal Aggarwal was providing accommodation entries to either intermediaries or the ultimate beneficiaries through paper companies including the assessee and the assessee is only a conduit for channelizing the unaccounted funds of beneficiary companies, therefore, in our opinion, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) appears to be incorrect and cannot be sustained. Accordingly we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. However the AO is directed to assess the commission income on accommodation entries @ 20 paisa on Rs. 27,63,46,000/- which comes to Rs. 6,90,865/-. Consequently the Appeal of the assessee is party allowed. Addition of payment made under MOU while computing the income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that undisputedly the assessee entered into MOU for transfer of land measuring 85.51 acres which belonged to Paul Brothers. Since the Paul brothers could not hand over the possession of the impugned land to the assessee due to on going legal disputes and therefore the assessee made payment only as advance on the date of signing of MOU on 31.03.2012. We note that Rs. 1,01,000/- was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the consideration for which the impugned land was purchased was fully accounted for in the books as asset and the outstanding part of the sales consideration was shown as liabilities. In view of this fact, we are not in a position to sustain the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and consequently we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. The ground is allowed. Unexplained investment/purchases of land - HELD THAT:- The consideration payable to Sri Tarun Kanti Ghoshal was shown as outstanding and was duly shown in the liability side under the head current liabilities and therefore we are not in a position to approve the conclusion drawn by the authorities that the consideration was understated by the assessee whereas as a matter of fact there was no understatement of value of impugned land. Moreover the authorities below have not brought on record any evidence substantiating the fact that the consideration was paid outside the books of accounts. In the instant case the consideration for which the impugned land was purchased was fully accounted for in the books as asset and the outstanding part of the sales consideration was shown as li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the course of search and seizure operation, the books of accounts and various other documents were seized and the case of the assessee was centralized with Central Circle-Dhanbad vide order dated 15.11.2014 passed by CIT(Kolkata)-1 vide memo no. CIT/Kol-I/Trans of Juris/Cent/127/2014- 15/5913-5914. With this background the year-wise appeals are adjudicated in the appeals hereinbelow. 3. First of all we shall adjudicate in IT(SS) A No. 15/Ran/2018 for AY 11-12. The assessee has revised the grounds of appeal vide letter dated 9.10.2023 which are extracted as below: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred confirming addition of Rs. 27,63,46,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O on account of share capital and share premium knowing fully well that these were merely paper credit entries counterbalanced by equal debit entries of paper investments on the same date(s) routed through the bank account of the appellant company by Shri BajrangLal Agarwal (being the creator/previous owner of the Appellant company), a conduit mechanism in course of carrying on of his accommodation entry business. 2. That the appellant craves leave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d constituted by Shri Bajrang Lal Agarwal. The AO also noted that the Directorate of Investigation (Kolkata) after detailed investigation and enquiry compiled data base of more than 4000 companies which existed on papers only and have been created by entry operators for the purpose of giving accommodation entries. The AO observed that the assessee company as well as the two subscribers controlled by Shri Bajrang Lal Agarwal namely M/s Tanika Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Erwin Trading Pvt. Ltd. and a third company M/s United Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., were also found in the data compiled by the Investigation Wing(Kolkata). The AO also noted on page 3 in answer to question no.2 that Shri Bajrang Lal Agarwal admitted during the course of recording the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act on 19.02.2014 and on 30.04.2015 that he was providing accommodation entries to various entities in the form of share capital/ unsecured loans in lieu of net commission ranging between 10 to 25 paisa per hundred rupees. Shri Bajrang Lal Agarwal has admitted of controlling various companies as stated herein above as conduit for providing accommodation entries. The AO also noted that in reply to question no. 4 thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 1/- per share with a premium of Rs. 499/- and also raised 20,00,000 each shares from two companies namely Erwin Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and Tanika Commercial Pvt. Ltd. each by issuing shares at face value. All the sums or monies received were immediately transferred to the beneficiaries. The Ld. A.R, while referring to the bank statement of the assessee maintained with Dhan Laxmi Bank, Kolkata, stated that for every receipt there was a corresponding entity in favour of beneficiary and therefore stated that the assessee was a pass through entity engaged in providing accommodation entries only. The Ld. A.R., while referring to the balance sheet of the assessee company, argued that the receipt of money amounting to Rs. 27,63, 46,000/- from 16 companies was matched with the advancing of money to 8 entities aggregating to Rs. 27,63,61,000/-. The Ld. A.R stated that the closing balance of the bank account was only 6000/- as on 31.03.2011. The ld. A.R argued that since the assessee is not a beneficiary of the entries and the assessee is just a conduit company which after collecting the money in the form of share capital and share premium passed on and transferred to various beneficiarie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d heavily on the orders of authorities below. The ld D.R contended that there was a huge organized racket going on of advancing accommodation entries which is not permissible under the Act and there is a need to check the evasion from such illegal activities. The assessee cannot be discharged from the obligation of proving the source and final destination the money. The ld DR therefore prayed that the appeal of the assessee may kindly be dismissed. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Undisputed factsare that the assessee was constituted and formed by Shri Bajrang Lal Agarwal forproviding accommodation entries in the form of share capital/ share premium / unsecured loans. It is also undisputed that Shri Bajrang Lal Agarwal was controlling the assessee company through dummy directors as stated hereinabove besides controlling other shell companies. The said fact was admitted during the course of recording of statement u/s 132(4) of the Act on 19.02.2014 and 13.04.2014. We note that Shri Bajrang Lal Agarwal admitted to have been engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital/share premium/unsecured loans in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Energy Ltd. and the entities owned by common shareholder, which is a subsidiary flagship Company, Bhushan Steel Ltd. now merged with Tata Steels Ltd. The fund have flown from Bhushan Energy Ltd. through maze of group companies whereby the funds which has been accounted in the books of Bhushan Energy Ltd. have been routed through group companies and finally have been rerouted back into the books of the Bhushan Energy Ltd. The entire chain and link involves actual movement of accounted fund of BEL in the form of share capital and or loan advances into the assessee company herein and subsequent reintroduction of such funds into regular account of BEL to augment its capital base. 67. Thus, it is quite evident that in various chains of links and the flow of the funds, nowhere there are any unaccounted funds of any of the lender companies or if any of the assessee companies which can be said to have been introduced either by the assessee company or by the lender company. The source of the source has been proved at all levels, right from origin of the funds to the final destination stands substantiated and neither there is unaccounted money nor there is any outside entry operator to rou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank account of the Appellant company with Dhanlaxmi Bank, Kolkata ignoring that these were merely paper credit entries counter balanced by equivalent debit entries to the same parties on the same date in the said bank account. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,01,000/- on account of payment made to Sri Tarun Kanti Ghoshal on the date of signing of Memorandum of Understanding between Sri Tarun Kanti Ghoshal and the appellant company for the sale of land at Renguni Mouza, Dhanbad although the same is duly covered by the additional income disclosed and/or assessed in the hands of the actual investor/buyers of land in course of their search/reassessment proceedings u/s 153A/147 of the Act. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, alter any or all the grounds during the course of hearing and/or pendency of appeal. 10. Issue raised in ground no. 1 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,57,81,000/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect of credit entries in the bank account of the assessee during the year by ignoring the fact the corresponding debit were also appearing in the bank account of the assessee. The aggrega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... represented by its director Shri Trilokee Singh. During the course of search and thereafter, SriBajrangLal Agarwal deposed that after transaction was over, Sri Trilokee Singh and Sri Manik Kumar Tiwary became the new Directors. Copy of the same MOU was also found during the course of search on 19.02.2014 at the residential premises of Sri Bani Brata Paul at Mahisila Colony, Asansol on the same day. The same was seized with ID mark BBP-01 /pages 8-16. The MOU details the terms of sale of 85.51 acres of land at Renguni Mouza, Dhanbad. It, inter alia, provides that the land will be sold @ Rs. 31,000/- per katha. So the total cost of land comes to Rs. 15,90,48,600/- (Rs. 31.000/- x 85.51x60). Out of the above Rs. 1,01,000/- was paid on the date of MOU on 31.03.2012. The AO noted from the reply dated 26.02.2016 filed by the A.R that the company was purchased by the present group of people in the year 2012-13,but MOU dated 31.03.2012 shows that control over the company was vested with the present set of people at least before 31.03.2012. According to the AO the amount paid Rs. 1,01,000/- on signing of MOU has not been considered while computing the total income of the assessee company an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total addition of Rs. 1,83,90,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of alleged unexplained expenditure recorded in seized document marked AR-1, page 109 being in the nature of registration fees, fees for drafting of sale deeds, payment to Power of Attorney Holder etc. although the same is duly covered by the additional income disclosed and/or assessed in the hands of the actual investors/buyers of land in course of their search/reassessment proceedings u/s 153A/147 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) faulted in confirming addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O in the hands of the Appellant-company as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B on account of alleged payment made to Sri Bajrang Lal Agarwal, being the previous owner of the Appellant-company, for purchase of the Appellantcompany. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) acted whimsically in upholding the addition of Rs. 27,55,500/- madeby the Ld. A.O as undisclosed investment u/s 69B on account of alleged commission of Rs. 22,55,500/- paid to Sri Vivek Agarwal as recorded in seized document marked AR-5, page 10 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of payment made by Mohan Babu to Sri Viv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee received from different entities/companies and accordingly issued notices to all the companies in order to confirm these investments which werealso returned unserved. Finally the AO on the basis of bank statement added Rs. 1,24,00,000/- in the hands of the company by treating the company as beneficiary by recording observations that the said amount would take care of the expenses of stamp duty of Rs. 1,24,44,500/- incurred by the assessee on the registration of land. 19. In the appellant proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) simply affirmed the order of AO on the same reason. 20. The Ld. A.R submitted before us that Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, his friends Shri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal and Shri Deepak Kumar Sanwaria finalized the deal to purchase the piece of land measuring 85.51 acres at Renguni Mouza Dhanbad from Shri Tarun Kanti Ghoshalwho was a power of attorney holder of land owners namely Rabindra Nath Paul, Sri Binoy Krishna Paul, Sri Amiya Kumar Paul, Sri Bani Brata Paul and Sri Uday Shankar Paul. The Ld. A.R submitted that the said land was under several disputes and litigations and therefore the sale consideration was finalized at Rs. 31,000/- per katha aggregating to Rs. 15,90,48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 and 1 deed on 27.07.2012 were found from the premises of Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal during the course of search and marked as page 57 of A.R-5. The Ld. A.R again submitted that the funds used for paying part sale consideration and for meeting incidental expenses including the stamp duty were made available by three persons as stated above out of their personal sources. The Ld. A.R while candidly admitting that though these three persons have given unaccounted cash to Shri Vivek Agarwal, CA who handed over the same to Shri Anup Himmatsinka, Kapalitola who then deposited the said cash in the bank account to various other companies and after routing the said cash through several layers, arranged cheques drawn on those paper companies which were deposited in the bank account of assessee with IDBI Bank, Howrah and the amount so deposited in the bank account of the assessee were utilized for making DDs for payment of stamp duty aggregating of Rs. 1,22,44,500/- and for payment of Rs. 79,00,000/- (Rs. 60 Lakhs DD and 19 Lakhs for RTGS) to Shri Tarun Ghosal towards part payment of consideration for the impugned land. The Ld. A.R stated that all these facts were admitted by Shri Suresh Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the assessee withdrew from IDBI Bank, Howrah of Rs. 1,07,85,000/- on various dates which were stated to be Self Howrah and were handed over to Sri Vivek Agarwal from time to time and balance of Rs. 2,02,05,000/- was introduced by Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Shri Yogendra Kumar Agrwal and Sri Deepak Sanwaria. Similarly the ld. A.R explained as to how the money was utilized in various assessment years for meeting various expenses in relation to Renguni Land which aggregated to Rs. 3,52,50,000/-. Finally the Ld. A. R summing up his arguments submitted that the addition made by AO of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- which represented the deposits in the IDBI Bank upto06.06.2012 as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee is wrong and against the facts on record. The Ld. A.R prayed that the same may kindly be deleted as the same has been offered as additional income in the hands of the various persons namely Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Sri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal and Sri Deepak Kumar Sanwaria etc. as is evident from table A B extracted hereinabove. 22. The Ld. D.R, on the other hand, submitted that the entire submissions/contentions of the assessee are afterthought as these were introduce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to withdrawal of money from assessee bank account. The AO also noted that the assessee has given from its bank account a sum of Rs. 79,00,000/- on three occasions namely Rs. 40,00,000/- vide DD on 2.07.2012 , Rs. 20,00,000/- vide DD on 03.07.2012 and Rs. 19,00,000/- on 28.08.2012. The total of all these amounts come to The details of ready reference: In order to verify the source of money, t who issued cheques in the name of the a met the above payments which were returned unserved. expenses as unexplained ex 1 page 109 and added the sum of Rs. 1,83,90,000/ 26. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,81,45,000/ reproduced above thereby allowing that there was a prima facie mistake in the assessment order seized document AR-1 page 109 and various debit entries in bank account maintained with IDBI works out to Rs. 1,81,45,000/ findings given by the ld AO with documentary evidences and therefore addition is confirmed as there is no reason to inter 27. We have heard rival submission that these expenses were incurred out of total fund the above three persons namely Sri Suresh Kumar Aga Agarwal and Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) as made by the AO u/s 69B of the Act on account of payment made to Sri Bajrang Lal Agarwal as unexplained investments. 29. Facts in brief are that the AO on the basis of statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal recorded on 19.02.2014 u/s 132(4) of the Act, particularly in reply to question no. 19, deposed before DDIT (Inv) that for purchasing the assessee company, the previous owner Shri Bajrang Lal Agarwal was paid Rs. 30,00,000/- and since the same has not been accounted for, accordingly the AO treated the same as unexplained investment u/s 69B in the hands of the assessee. 30. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition on the same lines on which the AO made addition. 31. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that Rs. 30,00,000/- was added in the hands of assessee company by the AO on the ground that director of the company Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal and his friends paid the said amount to Sri Bajrang Lal Agarwal for acquisition of assessee company. We note that the amount was stated to be paid by the buyers of the assessee company i.e. Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Sri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal and Sri Deepak Kumar Sanwaria. So we find merit in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in in reply to question no. 2 (part-B) he received only Rs. 5.70 Lakhs on the sale of BCPL a copy of which is filed at page 473-476 of PB. We have also examined the assessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act in the case of Sri Vivek Agarwal for FY 2013-14 wherein Sri Vivek Agarwal has been assessed qua Rs. 22,55,500/-less commission paid of Rs. 5.70 Lakhs to Sri Bajrang Lal Agarwal. As is apparent from copy of assessment order placed at page 358-367 of PB. We note that findings to this effect were given by the AO in para 7.4 of the assessment order. Considering these facts and circumstances we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly for the reason stated above, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly , ground no. 3 is allowed. 32. Issue raised in ground no. 4 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 27,55,500/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of alleged commission paid to Sri Vivek Agarwal and Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of payment made by Mohan Babu to Sri Vivek Agarwal. 33. Facts in brief are that the Ld. A.O has observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO to delete the addition. As far as the commission of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid by Mohan Babu alias Shri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal to Vivek Agarwal on 23.02.2013 as per noting on A.R-1 page 110 is concerned, we find that the noting is duly considered in the chart summarizing the contributions made by different individuals namely Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Sri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal and Sri Deepak Kumar Sanwaria as compiled in Table C which is as under: The funds contributed by these three persons as compiled in table A (supra) which includes the commission paid to Vivek Agarwal and cash paid to him for the purpose of introduction into the bank account of the assessee company after arranging cheque entries for meeting various expenses such as stamp duty, payment to Sri Tarun Kanti Ghoshal. Therefore the main noting of Rs. 5,00,000/- does not reflect the commission over and above Rs. 22,55,500/- and in fact the contribution made by Sri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal is against the various expenses incurred in the impugned land as given in Table no. A (supra). We note that the said contribution by Sri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal in the impugned land was duly covered in the additional income disclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of payment of consideration is as per the MOU that was seized during the course of the search. It was submitted that no actual payment of consideration of Rs. 22,10,26,000/- was made and that no addition U/s 69B of The IT Act 196 1 can be made simply on the basis of consideration stated in the sale deed without any evidence. However, the submission of the appellant cannot be relied upon. The sale deed in respect of land admeasuring 85.5 1 acre at RenguniMouza, Dhanbad was executed on 23/07/20 12 and 27/07/20 12 by Sri Tarun Kanti Ghoshal the power of attorney holder of Sri Rabindra Nath Paul, Sri Binay Krishna Paul, Sri Amiya Krishna Paul, Sri Bani Brata Paul and Sri Uday Shankar Paul in favour of M/s Bhawesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. The details are as follows. As per section 54 of The Transfer of Property Act Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part promised. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestment in the impugned land was actually paid by the assessee was understated to the extent of Rs. 21,31,26,000/- . We observe from the facts before us that the impugned land measuring 85.51 acres at Renguni Mouza Dhanbadwas under dispute and litigation and Paul brothers could not give the possession on the date of registration of sale deeds to the assessee. We observe from the chronology of the events and facts that there were pending cases in respect of said land being FA 43/2012 before Hon ble Jharkhand High Court and pending Title Suit No. 92 of 2010 filed by M/s A To Z Properties in respect of impugned land before the Sub-Judge 1st Court at Dhanbad. This is further corroborated by the fact that it was only on 26.06.2023 that the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Div. 1stDhanbad in MCA NO. 200 of 2023 arising out of Execution Case No. 30 of 2003 filed by Paul Brothers for appointment of a survey knowing pleader Commissioner in respect of the impugned land for identification, measurement and demarcation of the subject land for delivery of possession to Paul Brother pursuant to order dated 30.06.2022 of the Hon ble Jharkhand High Court in FA No. 43 /2012 in favour of Paul Brothers. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and/or assessed in the hands of the actual investors/buyers of land in course of their search/reassessment proceedings u/s 153A/147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,29,800/- made by the Ld. A.O u/s 69B as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C on account of payment made to Sri K.D. Singh on the basis of entry recorded in seized document marked AR-1, page 68 although the same is duly covered by the additional income disclosed and/or assessed in the hands of the actual investors/buyers of land in course of their search/reassessment proceedings u/s 153A/147 of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) further faulted in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O u/s 68 as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C on account of payment made to Sri Tushar Kanti Ghosal, Advocate based on entry recorded in seized document marked AR-1, page 68 although the same is duly covered by the additional income disclosed and/or assessed in the hands of the actual investors/buyers of land in course of their search/reassessment proceedings u/s 153A/147 of the Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) acted erroneously in confirming addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hands of the actual buyers of the land as reflected in Table B supra. Further, the impugned payment made by Sri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal (alias Mohan Babu) has also been added on a substantive basis in his assessment order u/s 153A dated 28.03.2016 for A.Y. 2014-15 (enclosed at pages 341-344 of the PB.). Since the impugned payment has been assessed on a substantive basis in the hands of the actual payer, no cause arises for considering the same yet again in the hands of the Appellant company. The source of the impugned expenditure stands explained in the disclosure of additional income made in respect of undisclosed investment in land by Sri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal and accordingly the same cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure of the Appellant company u/s 69C of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition of Rs. 5 lakhs having been made doubly in the hands of the assessee company after simultaneously also assessing the same on a substantive basis in the hands of the actual payer i.e., Sri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal, deserves to be deleted. 46. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we note that the impugned payment of Rs. 5.00 Lakh was already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the above expenses were incurred by Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Sri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal and Sri Deepak Kumar Sanwaria and have been considered in the computation/working of undisclosed expenses/investments in the impugned land in Table A supra. We note that the above payments were duly covered in the additional income disclosed/assessed in the hands of the above three individuals as is apparent from Table B supra and therefore no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. 51. Now we shall adjudicate in revenue s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 84/Ran/2019 for AY 2013-14. The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the protective addition aggregating to Rs. 2,70,51,000/- in the case of the assessee by ignoring the fact that the appeal against the substantive addition which was confirmed in the case of beneficiary company M/s BCPL is pending before Tribunal. 52. Facts in brief are that the AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, made an additions of Rs. 15,50,000/- and Rs. 1,26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Agarwal , Sri Deepak Kumar Sanwaria and Baleshwar Prasad so far as Rs. 15,50,000/- is concerned which was made by AO in the hands of assessee on protective basis. According to the AO, Rs. 1,83,000/- was given in cash to Vivek Agarwal and in view of that the cheques were introduced in the bank account of M/S BCPL and thereafter DD s of various denominations as given in para 5.1 of the assessment order were prepared for payment of stamp duty. According to the AO, the letter issued to parties to confirm this investment were returned unserved. Accordingly the AO noted that Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal agreed to have paid Rs. 97,50,000/- and Sri Yogendra Kumar Agarwal agreed to have paid Rs. 70,00,000/- and the total amount comes to Rs. 1,67,50,000/- whereas the total amount given to Vivek Agarwal was Rs. 1,83,00,000/- and consequently the AO came to the conclusion that Rs. 15,50,000/- has to be added as protective basis in the hands of assessee. Similarly in respect of Rs. 1,26,90,000/- the AO noted that there was cash introduction of Rs. 1,26,90,000/- in the case of M/s BCPL on or after 27.07.2012 and upto 28.08.2012out of which Rs. 91,81,107/- was spent of registration of the land and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
