Case Law Details
Jagmohan Singh Bedi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹59.18 crore under section 69A in the hands of the assessee, alleging that amounts received from hundreds of investors in the name of a real estate group company (M/s IFAMA Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.) represented unexplained money of the assessee. The same addition was made protectively for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 and substantively for AY 2017-18, effectively taxing the same alleged amount across multiple years.
The assessee contended that he was merely a low-paid employee of the group and was fraudulently shown as a manager/director on record without any control over or benefit from the company’s funds. All alleged receipts were in the company’s business and bank accounts, and no money was ever found in his possession nor any unexplained asset or bank transaction was identified in his personal hands.
The Tribunal held that even if investor monies were received by the company, such receipts could at best be examined in the hands of the company and not in the personal hands of its director/employee. Merely being a director does not make company receipts the individual’s unexplained money under section 69A, which requires the assessee to be found owner or possessor of such money. As there was no material showing that the assessee personally received, held, or owned the alleged funds, the addition was unsustainable.
Accordingly, the substantive addition of ₹59.18 crore for AY 2017-18 was deleted. Consequentially, the protective additions for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 also failed and were deleted. The Tribunal thus prevented double/multiple taxation of the same alleged receipts and clarified that company funds cannot be assessed as personal unexplained income of a director in absence of evidence of personal ownership or receipt.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 31.08.2024 for the A.Y’s 2015-16 to 2018-19.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of its appeal :-
“1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10288583 has erred in passing order dtd. 30.05.2023 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).
2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of Ld. AO in initiating, continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 148 r.w.s 147 and hence the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed.
3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 59,18,00,000/-/s 69A by erroneously holding that assessee is the owner of amount of this year received in M/s IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited & other entities and treating the same as unexplained money of the appellant.
4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the orders passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.”
3. The Ld. Counsel at the outset submitted that the AO made addition u/s.69A in all three assessment years i.e. 2015-16 and 2016-17 as protective assessment and the addition was made substantively for the A.Y. 2017-18. In other words the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that same addition has been made in all the three assessment years u/s.69A of the Act which is nothing but double taxation.
4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Since the addition is made substantively in the assessment year 2017-18 take up the appeal for the A.Y.2017-18 for adjudication.
5. We observe that the assessee made the following elaborate submissions before the ld. CIT(A) / NFAC :-
FACTS OF THE CASE :-
1. The appellant is an Individual.
2. The appellant has not filed its return u/s 139(1) for the year under reference as total income below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax.
3. During the year, the appellant was an employee of M/s Earth Infrastructure Limited as Executive-Compliance and drawing a salary of INR 20,000 per month.
Further, With the intention to defraud the investors/Government and other stakeholders, the Management of M/s Earth Infrastructure Limited fraudulently appointed the assessce as a manager in a company known as M/s IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited. However, Assessee was drawing his salary from Earth Infrastructure Limited Only. He was appointed as a manager only on record and to misuse it. However, he was not involved or aware about any business activity carried out by the company except the fact that the company was a group company of Earth Infrastructure Limited and engaged in Real Estate Business.
Further, Assessee has received a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act and in response to said notice, assessee has filed its return of income declaring its salary income. The Ld. AO held that assessee was the one of directors of the company known as IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited and held that amount received in the aforesaid company and other entities is taxable u/s 69A of the IT Act in the hands of the assessee.
Being aggrieved against above actions, this appeal is being preferred.
GROUND WISE SUBMISSION
Ground No. 1,2 and 3:
1. That the impugned order is against facts and law.
2. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case. Id. A.O. has ered in initiation, continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961and hence the impugned assessment deserves to be quashed.
3. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld. AO deserves to be quashed since no reasonable opportunity of being heard was afforded by the respondent.
Submission on these Grounds:
1. Through this ground, appellant has challenged the initiation. continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 as the Ld. A.O had issued the notice u/s 148 of the Ir Act without applying his mind and even without applying principal of natural justice.
2. The Ld. A.O. had made addition of Rs.59.18 Crore on the fact that assessee was director in a company namely IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited, a company who had committed fraud with its investors. The extracts of assessment order is as under:
“8. In the case as per information available with the Department, Shri Jagmohan Singh Bedi, PAN: AOPPB6368F has received Rs. 59,18,00,000/- in M/s IFAMA Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd (PAN: AACC19776Q) from 636 investors as per report filed by Resolution Professional in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and also took money from investors and neither give property in return nor the money back. M/s IFAMA Builders and Developers Put is a Private incorporated on 21 February 2008. The company is involved in building completion including activities that contribute to the completion or finishing of a construction and repairs. The Director of M/S.AMR Infrastructures Ltd, Shri Deepak Kumar, during the course of proceedings before NCLT in the case of Nikhil Mehta Vs. AMR Infrastructures Ltd has submitted that a number of brokers appointed by the Company have taken money from the customers in the name of their entities based on their understanding with the customers. However, the amount so collected has never reached M/s.AMR Infrastructures Ltd and thus not accounted and not verifiable from accounts. Further as conflicts arose between the shareholders and there were delays in project completion, a number of employees and brokers of the company have issued credit notes which were not authorized by M/s.AMR Infrastructures Ltd and thus not accounted. Around 636 investors have claimed to have deposited amount in cash with other entities in respect of bookings made for units with M/s.AMR Infrastructures Ltd and M/s IFAMA Builders and Developers Put Ltd (PAN: AACCI9776Q) is one of such entities. The amount claimed to have deposited in cash with other entities by said 636 claims/investors amounted to Rs. 59,18,00,000/-, Such large number of claims where consideration has been received from investors were not deposited in the account of M/s. AMR Infrastructures Ltd are indicative of business practice designed with the intend to defraud the creditors as the amount received in respect of projects of M/s. AMR Infrastructures Ltd even before it could reach the coffers of M/s. AMR Infrastructures Ltd. Shri Jagmohan Singh Bedi, PAN: AOPPB6368F is one of the Directors of M/s IFAMA Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (PAN : AACCI9776Q) and he was appointed as Director in the Company on 25.07.2016. In and Developers Pvt Ltd (ΡΑΝ: ΛΑACC197760) and he was assessee has received Rs. 59,18,00,000/-in M/s IFAMA Builders and Develpers Pvt Ltd (PAN: AACC197760) from 636 investors of new of the above facts, it is established beyond doubt that the AM/ AMR Infrastructures Lid during the Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
3. In this context, it is most respectfully submitted that assessee an employee of a M/s Earth Infrastructure Limited drawing salary of all documents related to employed enclosed with this reply as Rx 20,000/-Approx from this company only till February-2017. Copy annexure-2.
With the intention to make fraud with its customers, promoter of the employer company Earth Infrastructure Limited had appointed the AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED as on 25.07.2016 (AY 2017-assessee as a manager in a group company namely “IFAMA BUILDERS 18). Copy of master data available on MCA portal enclosed as annexure herewith. This is to bring into your kind attention that even after appointed as manager in IFAMA, assessee was engaged in his executive related work in Earth Infrastructure Limited and drawing salary from there only. He was never engaged in any business/ financial activity of IFAMA at any point of time during his employment in Earth Infrastructure Limited.
Further. All the promoters of the Earth Infrastructure Limited and other Group companies are already into the Jail for well-known fraud committed with the various customers and employees of the company as well.
Furthermore, in the absence of any specific information, Ld. AO had made addition of 59.18 Crore in all three assessment years. Infact, the same amount had been assessed in the various assessees who were executive level employees in the Earth Infrastructure and had been appointed as director/manager in various group companies of the Earth Infrastructure with the intention to commit fraud with various stakeholders.
On the basis of above facts and circumstances, it is very much clear that Ld. AO had made violation of principal of natural justice which in an essential condition for all tax authorities to complied with before passing any adverse order as directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and apex courts as well. Some of the cases are: M. Chockalingam and M. Meyyappan v. CIT, Madras, (1963) 48 ITR 34 (SC) and (Rameshwaram Paper Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. & others (2009) 11 VLJ 33 (All); Padam Traders & others u. State of U.P. & others (2009) 47 STJ 392 (All)), Ram Chander u. Union of India & Ors. 1986 SCC (4) 12 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT AIR 1955 (SC) 65: 27 ITR 126 (SC)
4. Further, there was complete lack of application of mind on part of the d. AO as even he is not sure who had received the amount and when. The Ld. AO not tried to find the facts about the situation. Rather, he elieved in passing the assessment order in an arbitrary manner without considering the facts of the case and complete the task within meline. Therefore, assessment framed u/s 148 of IT Act may please be ashed and void ab initio.
5. Relying on the following judgements:
i. [2024] 162 taxmann.com467 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Classic Stripes (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Section 148A, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Conducting inquiry, providing Income escaping assessment opportunity before issue of notice (Illustrations) – Assessment year 2019-20 Assessing Officer issued to assessee a notice under section 148(b) and assessee assessee replied to notice – Thereafter Assessing Officer passed impugned order under section 148A(d) alleging that assessee had failed to demonstrate that certain receipts had been fully disclosed- whether since assessee had explained in reply to notice under section 148A(b) regarding said receipts and if Assessing Officer was not satisfied with explanation given by assessee, impugned order under section 148(d) could not be sustained heaving been passed without application of mind. Held, yes [Paras 9 and 11]
ii. [2024] 163 taxmann.com574 (Kolkata ITAT KOLKATA BENCH C Rajesh Kumar Jalan v.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Section 68, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Cash credit (Revision) Assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17-Assessee engaged in trading of cloth, filed his return under section 44AD On basis of information from Bureau of Investigation, Commercial taxes, that there were certain deposits in bank account of assessee in name of his proprietary concern, Assessing Officer reopened assessment in both assessment years Assessee submitted that he had not opened any of Bank accounts and that might have been done by some unknown person by using fake identity of Assessing Officer was not satisfied with submissions of assessee and he was of view that said sum was to be treated as unaccounted sales of assessee and he assumed this figure as turnover of assessee and estimated profit at 8% and estimated unexplained investment – Appeal was filed against said assessment order Meanwhile, Additional Commissioner forwarded a proposal to CIT for initiating proceedings under section 263 against assessee CIT issued a notice under section 263 and observed that alleged credit of sales ought to be treated as unexplained cash credit against name of assensee and Assessing Officer had erred in treating it as a gross turnover – Whether since Commissioner had just reproduced proposal sent by Additional CIT and there was no independent application of mind at his end for taking cognizance under section 263, order passed under section 263 was to be quashed, particularly when said issue was pending in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) – Held, yes [Paras 21 to 231.
iii. [2023] 155 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Bhavesh Maganlal Dharod v. Income-tax Officer WRIT PETITION NO. 2774 OF 2023 SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
Section 151, read with sections 148A and 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment Sanction for issue of notice (Illustrations) – Assessment year 2019-20 Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148A(b) on 29-3-2023-Assessing Officer submitted form for approval under section 151 wherein it was stated that quantum of income which had escaped assessment was four lakhs and time limit for current proceedings was covered under section 149(1)(b) After approval was granted by Principal Commissioner, order under section 148A(d) was passed and reopening notice was issued on 20-4-2023 Assessee challenged impugned order and reopening notice on ground that sanction was granted mechanically by Principal Commissioner without application of mind Whether since notice under section 148A(b) was issued within three years time limit, current proceedings should be covered under section 149(1)(a) Held, yes Whether furthermore under section 1452b) no notice could he be granted by Principal Chief Commissioner, thus grant of for amount less than Rs. 50 lakhs and approval could only pelas minde mechanically without application of mind and impugned order and reopening notice were to be set aside Held, yes (Paras 3, 4 and 5/
In the light of above facts, circumstances and legal position, it is prayed that the present ground of the appellant may please be allowed.
Ground No. 4:
That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition of Rs.59,18,00,000/- by erroneously holding that assessee is the owner of amount received in M/s IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited & other entities, as unexplained money u/s 69A even when assessee has not found the ouner or in possession of any money during the relevant period and infact, he was just an employee of Earth Infrastructure Limited since 2012 till March-2017 and drawing salary of Rx.20,000 from this company only and with the intention to defraud the investors/Government/other stakeholders, management of Earth infrastructure Limited had appointed him as a manager in a company known as M/s IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited with effect from 25.07.2016. The amount received in the IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited & other entities could not at all have been held as unexplained money in the hands of assessee taxable u/s 69A. the
Submissions on this Ground:
1. Through this ground, the appellant has challenged an addition of Rs. 59.18 Crores made by the Ld. AO u/s 68A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The background of this addition is that the appellant was an employee of Earth Infrastructure Limited from the year 2012 till Feb 2017. With the intention to make fraud with various stakeholders the promoter of the company had appointed the appellant as manager in a group company namely IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited as on 25.07.2016. Just because of this, Ld. AO. Passed an impugned assessment order that since appellant was director in the company, therefore, he had received the amount of Rs.59.18 Crores from various person.
3. The appellant was not even manager during the relevant assessment year.
4. Further, there is no material/information available with the Ld. AO which substantiate that appellant found the owner of any money. bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.”
5. It is pertinent to mention here that Ld. AO at own had decided that appellant was in receipt of such advances of Rs.59.18 Crore from various investors without considering the fact that appellant was just an executive level employee in earth infrastructure Limited. a query regarding this received by the appellant was also raised by Registrar of Companies, Delhi and the appellant duly attended the hearing and recorded in statement on bath at that time. Copy of the same enclosed herewith as annexure.
6. Before pointing out the defects in recording of facts, reasoning adopted and the ultimate conclusion drawn by the Ld. AO, it is pertinent to refer to provisions of s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which reads as under:
“Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money. bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.”
In the present case, the appellant had not been found the owner of any money, bullion or other valuable article.
7. The making of addition u/s 69A in respect of advance above referred is erroneous due to the following counts:
a. The appellant had not received any amount or sum or any anything from anything.
b. There was not even single suspicious transaction in the bank statement of the appellant identified by the Ld. AO towards which appellant unable to provide explanations.
c. The appellant had not been found of any assets by the Ld. AO towards which appellant was unable to provide any explanations.
n this situation, addition u/s 69A cannot be made in respect of advance received from customers for sale of goods to be delivered in future. For this proposition, we rely upon the ratio of following judgements:
For this proposition, relied on the following judgements
i. [2024] 163 taxmann.com115 (Ahmedabad Trib.) IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH ‘SMC’ Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala v. Income-tax Officer IT Appeal No. 41 (AHD.) OF 2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18) MAY 28, 2024 Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys Assessment year 2017-18 Assessee, engaged in embroidery and art work for over 40 years, earned below taxable income limit and did not file income returns During demonetization, assessee deposited certain sum in joint bank accounts In response to a section 142(1) notice, assessee filed return, explaining deposits as personal savings and cash from her taxpayer brothers Assessing Officer passed an order under section 144, and made addition under Section 69A r.ws 115BBE On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld half addition, citing insufficient explanation – It was noted that deposit of certain sum was from maturity of fixed deposits Additionally, sum added to income of assessee’s brother, was same amount deposited in their joint bank account Whether in view of said facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in upholding half of assessment in hands of assessee u/s.69A Held, yes Whether therefore, entire addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted. Held, yes (Paras 7.3 and 7.4/
[2024] 162 taxmann.com 466 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Chatursinh Javanji Chavda Commissioner of Income-tax υ. Assistant R/SPECIAL APPLICATION NO. 4365 OF 2024APRIL 30, 2024 CIVIL Section 144B read with section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 1961- Faceless assessment Assessing Officer issued show
cause notice to assessee in respect of certain unaccounted cash receipts and payments Assessee requested a short adjournment to gather material and submitted a detailed revenue passed assessment order, stating that no reply was response to show cause notice Despite assessee’s response, on available received and finalized assessment based material – Whether once assessee had tendered reply to show cause notice, it was incumbent upon Assessing Officer to consider such reply and thereafter, to pass assessment order dealing with objections raised by assessee with regard to additions proposed in show cause notice, otherwise issuance of show cause notice prior to framing assessment along with draft assessment order would be futile exercise contrary t provisions of section 144B – Held, yes – Whether therefore impugned assessment order was to be set aside and mat would be remanded back to Assessing Officer to pass fre de novo order after considering contents of reply filed assessee – Held, yes (Paras 5, 6 and 7].
iii. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 115 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) IN ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH ‘SMC’ Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala v. Income-tax Officer IT Appeal No. 41 (AHD.) OF 2024 (Assessment Year 2017-18) MAY 28, 2024
section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys Assessment year 2017-18-Assessee, engaged in embroidery and art work for over 40 years, earned below taxable income limit and did not file income returns During demonetization, assessee deposited certain sum in joint bank accounts In response to a section 142(1) notice, assessee filed return, explaining deposits as personal savings and cash from her taxpayer brothers Assessing Officer passed an order under section 144, and made addition under Section 69A r. w.s 115BBE On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld half addition, citing insufficient explanation It was noted that deposit of certain sum was from maturity of fixed deposits – Additionally, sum added to income of assessee’s brother, was same amount deposited in their joint bank account Whether in view of said facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in upholding half of assessment in hands of assessee u/s.69A Held, yes Whether therefore, entire addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted Held, yes (Paras 7.3 and 7.4)
AMRITSAR [2024] 163 taxmann.com 662 (Amritsar Trib.) IN THE ITAT BENCH Ishtiaq Ahmad Dar υ. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax IT Appeal NOS. 275 & 276 (ASR) OF 2023 (Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2018-19] MAY 29, 2024
a. Section 153A, read with sections 69A and 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Search and seizure Assessment in case of (Conditions precedent) – Assessment years 2014-15 and 2018-19 – Assessing Officer made an addition under section 69A read with section 153A on account of difference in amount credited in bank and sale proceeds shown in the bank in income tax return sustained same Commissioner (Appeals) Whether since impugned additions were made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of search under section 132, same was to be deleted Held, yes (Para 13)
b. Section 153A, read with section and 153C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure – Assessment in case of (Section 153A vis a-vis section 153C) Assessment years 2014-15 and 2018-19 Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 153A read with section 143(3) making addition under section 69A on account of difference in returned income and income as per CA certificate seized during search operation carried out at premises of a company under Whether since document relied upon by Assessing Officer was discovered from premises of another company and not of assessee, assessment proceedings should have been initiated by Assessing Officer under section 153C and rather than section 153A -Held, yes Whether, therefore, impugned assessment order was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed – Held, yes (Para 20). section 132
υ. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 286 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Bank deposit) – Assessment year 2008-09-Assessing Officer made addition Commissioner on account of such unexplained cash deposit (Appeals) deleted addition by holding that in normal business activities, cash is withdrawn from bank to meet out daily expenses or specific expenses but at same time surplus cash is deposited or if Commissioner such cash withdrawn is not used is redeposited (Appeals) also noted that cash was duly accounted for in cash book and audited bank accounts and that no other conclusive proof can be given by assessee Whether in view of such concurrent finding of fact. impugned addition uns to be deleted-Held, yes (Porn 6.
In the light of above facta, circumstances and legal position, it is prayed that the present ground of the appellant may please be allowed.
Ground No. 5,6 & 7:
General and consequential in nature.
In the light of above facts, circumstances, legal position and submission, it is prayed that the appeal of the appellant may please be allowed. We shall be highly obliged.”
6. The Ld. CIT(A) however, sustained the addition not only in the assessment year 2017-18 but also sustained the very same addition for the Assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) objected for the addition of Rs.59,18,00,000/- made u/s. 69A stating that assessee was only employee of the company name M/s. IFAMA Builders and Developers Private Limited and all the transactions have happened in the company and assessee is merely a employee. However, it appears that the AO treated the deposit received from the investors as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee who appears to be a director in M/s. IFAMA Builders and Developers Private Limited.
7. However, we fail to understand as to how the deposit received or collected by M/s. IFAMA Builders and Developers Private Limited can be assessed in the hands of the assessee. Merely the assessee is a director in the said company deposit collected by the assessee on behalf of the company cannot be assessed as income of the assessee. If at all if the addition has to be made it is to be in the hands of the company but not in the hands of the director. In this circumstance we see no reason to assess Rs.59,18,00,000/- as income of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act. Thus, the addition made by the AO is directed to be deleted for A.Y.2017-18.
8. Since we have deleted the addition which was substantively made for the A.Y. 2017-18 the very same addition which was made on protective basis in the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 has no legs to stand for the reasons explained above.
9. Ground No.3 of grounds of appeal of the assessee for the A. Y. 2017-18 is allowed.
10. The decision taken by us for the A.Y. 2017-18 applies for the A.Y’s 2015-16 and 2016-17 also and accordingly we allow the ground No.3 for the A.Y’s 2015-16 and 2016-17.
10. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.01.2026.
Author Bio
