9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made by AO on account of unaccounted money lending business. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,32,15,769/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted payment of money to different parties. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 81,460/- made by AO on account of unexplained income. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any / all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 4. Grounds No.1 & 5 are general in nature, hence need not be adjudicated. 5. Apropos ground no. 2 relating to deletion of addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- on account of unaccounted money lending business is concerned, we observed that the assessing officer has noticed during the assessment proceedings assessee has received money from Prabha Somani and Bhiduri @ interest rate of 2% and further lend the amount to others, it is nothing but money lending business. At the same time, he agreed that this transaction relates to Bulland Buildtech Pvt Ltd, acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 raised by the revenue. 8. Apropos ground no. 3, relating to addition of Rs. 1,32,15,769/- on account of unaccounted payment of money to different parties is concerned, we observed that the assessee had submitted before AO that these transactions relates to Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt Ltd, however, he proceeded to make substantive addition in the hands of assessee since the documents were found in premises of the assessee and protective in the hands of the Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt Ltd. In appeal before CIT(A), we find that this addition was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by observing as under:- "6.2 The second addition of Rs. 1,32,15,769/- was also made in the case of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. in AY 2007- 08. While allowing the appeal in that case I have held in Appeal No. 175/13-14 vide order of even date as under:- 6.3 During the remand stage, no specific objection has been raised by the revenue, except that books of account were not seized during search and not produced during assessment proceedings. The books of account were already audited and present at the time of filing of original return in November, 2007 as well as at the time of reassessment proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bered 3, the third addition has been challenged. I find that appellant has substantial capital and cash in hand to explain this meagre amount of personal expenditure. There is no evidence to suggest that the expenditure has been met out of undisclosed income. The addition made cannot be sustained and is deleted." 11. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that this addition was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 7thJuly, 2014 and as per that order, this amount of personal expenditure might have met out of his own funds and there is no evidence to suggest that the expenditure has been met out of undisclosed income. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, hence we uphold the same on this issue and accordingly, reject the ground no.4 raised by the revenue. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2007-08 is dismissed. ITA No.4810/DEL/2014 (AY 2011-12) 12. The Revenue has taken following Grounds of Appeal in AY 2011-12 :- "1. The order of the CIT(A) is not correct tin law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- "...As regards jewellery found, it was submitted that these were ancestral jewellery belonging to different ladies in the family living jointly. The addition was made in the absence of member-wise details and documentary evidence. Firstly, the jewellery was not seized, indicating that the search team was satisfied about the ownership and source of jewellery found on the date of search. Secondly, it is customary among ladies and also men in Indian families to hold ancestral jewellery. The CBDT has prescribed that gold ornaments to the extent of 500 gms per married lady, 250 gms per unmarried lady and 100 gms per married male need not be seized. This instruction takes into account the customary practice in Indian households. As per details submitted before AO, the joint family of the appellant consisted of appellant's mother Smt. Parmali Devi, appellant's wife Smt. MaganBasist, appellant's brother Shri Sharda Ram and his wife Smt. Ratna Devi. All these persons were separately assessed to tax. Thus, there were at least three married ladies and two adult males in the family and the gold ornaments they coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi by search party P-l and seized, The business premises of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. These documents indicated a chit fund business, being run to privately finance the business or other financial needs of the members of the fund. Based on the entries recorded therein, the directors of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bulland Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- Rs. 50,00,000/- each in the hands of appellant and Sh. Ramkesh Basist, the two directors. The main dispute is regarding the income to be determined on the basis of these registers. In dispute are also additions based on assets found / seized and certain other additions based on other documents seized. 4.2 The case of the appellant was that the entries and calculation based on such entries were incorrectly worked out by the revenue. To verify this claim, the matter was remanded to the AO, who has worked out the actual amounts on the basis of these seized documents vide his letter dated 07.01.2014 / 23.01.2014 as collections / receipts-Rs.12,51,61,077/-; payments- Rs. 12,64,39,808/-; receivables / assets-Rs.25,19,73,967/-; and closing balance / liabilities-Rs.25,20,78,074/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions and material placed on record. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Rajneesh Nagar in AY 2011-12. We observed that Mr. Nagar is the Co- Director in Bulland Group and the addition was deleted vide ITAT order dated 20.01.2017 in ITA No.2667/Del/2014. In view of the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, hence we uphold the same on this issue and accordingly, reject the ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue. 20. Apropos ground no.5, relating to addition on account of unaccounted payment to different parties amounting to Rs. 1,43,80,042/-is concerned. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- "The next addition of Rs. 1,43,80,042/- alleged to be unaccounted payments to different parties as per seized document page-29 & 30 of Annexure Al. The addition was made as details of supporting evidence / books of accounts were not produced. The appellant claims that these transactions relate to M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. and are the same entries as recorded on page 35 of Annexure Al. I have gone through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en date. For the reasons recorded in Para-7.9 of the said order, this addition is deleted. The amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- is found to be cash balance of M/s Bulland Automobiles as on 23.01.2011 copy of the day cash book filed reveals the said balance. This addition also cannot be sustained and is deleted. The addition of Rs. 49,74,165/-, made on the basis of page-36, is said to be liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the period 30.09.2006 to 23.10.2006. This has been found recorded in the list of sundry creditors filed for the said periods. In any case, the transaction does not relate to this AY and no addition based on these entries can be sustained herein. These additions are, therefore, deleted." 23. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that out of total addition Rs. 49,74,164 is related to M/s Bulland Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 1,35,42,785/- relates to M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 1,80,000/- relates to M/s Bulland Automobiles. In this regard, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition of Rs. 49,74,164/- is the liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. and pertains to AY 2007-08 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: "7.4 Para-8 of the AO; Ground No.5: The next addition of Rs. l,43,80,042/- alleged to be unaccounted payments to different parties as per seized document page-29 & 30 of Annexure A1. The addition was made as details of supporting evidence I books of accounts were not produced. The appellant claims that these transactions relate to M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. and are the same entries as recorded on page 35 of Annexure AI. I have gone through the seized documents at pages-29, 30 & 36 of Annexure AI. I have also compared the entries in these pages with summary recorded on page-35 of Annexure A1. While pages-29, 30 & 36 contain list of creditors / loan liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. as on 30.06.2006, 30.09.2009 and 28.02.2007, the entries of page 35 give the position of investments and financial liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. as on 23.01.2006. Many of the entries on page-35 such as B S Wahi, Beekay, M K Bhalla, Prem Chand (Dheeraj), being loan creditors, are common. Therefore, these documents record common transactions / liabilities on different dates and for different purposes. Some of the transactions are again added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
