DVO applying CPWD rates instead of State PWD rates is untenable

POONAM GANDHI 25 Nov 2022 2,913 Views 0 comment Print Income Tax | Judiciary

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Appeal Number : ITA No(s) 1127/Del/2021

Date of Judgement/Order : 10/10/2022

Related Assessment Year : 2016-17

Courts : All ITAT ITAT Delhi

Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

Sponsored

Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT Delhi held that addition based on DVO report regarding construction of cost of property unsustainable as DVO applied CPWD rates, however, it is settled law that State PWD rate is better guiding factor for arriving at cost of construction of the property.

Facts-

AO made addition on account of addition of Rs.65,83,992/- u/s 69B of the Act being unexplained investment in construction of property at Noida(UP), u/s 68 of the Act being Rs.1,50,00,000/- on account of share application money / share capital received from Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on account of the investment made by Incredible India IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in the assessee company; and Rs.3,00,000/- on account of addition u/s 69C of the Act, being the disallowance of commission on the share capital of Rs.3,00,00,000/- which was added as income.

Aggrieved by the additions made by AO, the assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved against the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal.

Conclusion-

It is not in dispute that the impugned addition has been made on the basis report by DVO regarding construction cost of the property in question.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

The present appeals are filed by the above captioned assesses and the Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT(A)] for various assessment years mentioned hereinabove.

2. Since the issues raised by the parties in all these appeals are common, therefore all the appeals were taken up together for the hearing and being disposed of by way of a consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience.

3. At the outset, both the Learned Representative of the Parties have stated that the ITA No.1127/Del/2021 in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. may be taken as a lead case for factual matrix as majority of the issues involved in this appeal would be common to other appeals also.

We therefore take up ITA No.1127/Del/2021 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021) for A.Y.2016-17 in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. as a lead case.

4. The facts in brief as culled out from the material on records are that the Assessee is a company which is incorporated with the object of doing the business in construction of building as well as sale and purchase of land. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) was conducted on 10.11.2017 at the premises of the Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and other group of cases. It is recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) that during the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents/material belonging to the assessee company were found and seized. Consequently, a notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 26.09.2019 and the assessee was asked to file the return of income as mandated under law. In response thereto, the assessee electronically filed the return of income on 12.10.2019 declaring income at Nil. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny assessment and consequently, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2019 wherein the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.3,68,83,990/-. While arriving at the aforesaid income, the AO made addition inter alia on account of addition of Rs.65,83,992/- u/s 69B of the Act being unexplained investment in construction of property at Noida(UP), u/s 68 of the Act being Rs.1,50,00,000/- on account of share application money / share capital received from Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on account of the investment made by Incredible India IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in the assessee company; and Rs.3,00,000/- on account of addition u/s 69C of the Act, being the disallowance of commission on the share capital of Rs.3,00,00,000/- which was added as income.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions made by AO, the assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 12.08.2021 in Appeal No.CIT(A)-IV/KNP/11537/2019-20 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved against the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal and has raised the following grounds:

1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 22.12.2019 passed by the AO under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

1.1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the impugned proceedings initiated by the AO under section 153C were beyond jurisdiction and bad in law, in the absence of satisfaction note being recorded by the AO in possession of the seized documents gathered during to search under section 132 conducted in the case of another person, viz., Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav on 10.11.2017.

1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the impugned proceedings initiated by the AO under section 153C were beyond jurisdiction and bad in law, since no incriminating material/evidence/assets belonging to/relating to the appellant suggesting undisclosed income/investment were found in the course of search under section 132 at the premises of Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav, leave alone such material not being handed over to the AO of the appellant and consequently illegal satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the appellant.

1.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that (i) the invoices for purchase of construction material incurred by the appellant towards construction of property at Noida, which was duly recorded and disclosed in the books of account, and (ii) detail of share capital received from M/s. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Limited, constituted incriminating material within the meaning of section 153C of the Act, merely because the value of such construction expenses was determined by the DVO, on a subsequent reference made by DDIT(Inv.), at a higher value and share capital was deemed as unexplained cash credit, for which no adverse material was available, both at the time of search as also post search investigation, as well as assessment proceedings.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 17.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

Without Prejudice

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.65,83,992/- made by the AO under section 69B of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property on the basis of higher fair market value thereof determined by the DVO.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition of alleged unexplained investment on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153C, since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.

5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under section 69B on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT(Inv.), on the ground that the AO was not empowered to refer the aforesaid report, without an independent reference to DVO under section 142A of the Act.

5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the AO was competent to refer the report of DVO submitted pursuant to reference made by DDlT(Inv.) under section 132(9D) of the Act since the same DVO – (i) was competent to issue valuation report under section 142A, (ii) as also issue report using the same method of valuation.

6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the entire addition made by the AO under section 69B on the basis of valuation report of DVO, since the addition was not based on any evidence of unexplained investment made by the appellant and was merely made by estimating the fair market value of the property which was outside the scope of provisions of section 69B r. w.s. 142A of the Act.

7. Further without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not rejecting the report of DVO which suffered from several inaccuracies qua the method of valuation followed, like adoption of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates/not allowing discounting of 20% on account of personal supervision, etc.

7.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the DVO had adopted the appropriate method to determine the fair market value of the property and adopting CPWD rates for property situated in Noida, which was near to Delhi whereas PWD rates was not appropriate which was meant for entire state of UP.

8. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made by the AO with respect to Rs. 1,50,00,000 crores each received from the share applicants, viz., Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Limited and M/s. Incredible India Pvt. Limited and deemed as unexplained cash credit under section 68, merely on the basis of the statement by the Director of the aforesaid companies, without any further enquiries or providing the applicant with an opportunity to cross-examine the said Director.

8.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition on the ground of being beyond the scope of section 153C in the absence of any incriminating material there against found in the course of search conducted under section 132 at the premises of Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav.

9. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- made by the AO under section 69C alleging unexplained expenditure on account of commission towards aforesaid alleged accommodation entries of Rs.3,00,00,000/- received on account of share capital from two companies.

9.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition on the ground of being beyond the scope of section 153C in the absence of any incriminating material their against found in the course of search conducted under section 132 at the premises of Shri Rajeshwar Singh Prasad.

Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

6. The assessee vide Ground Nos.1 to 1.3 has assailed the assessment framed u/s 153C being unjustified, beyond jurisdiction and bad in law.

7. Before us, at the outset Ld. AR for the Assessee Company submitted that similar grounds have been raised by the assessee in other cases of the group and the submissions made herein by him while arguing the matter may be treated to have been adopted for similar grounds in other cases also. Ld. DR fairly agreed to this and submitted that he would also adopt the same arguments for other matters as are being addressed in this appeal.

8. Before us, Learned AR drew our attention to the copy of the satisfaction note recorded by the AO (copy of which is attached at pages 5 & 6 of the paper book). From the aforesaid satisfaction note, first of all he submitted that the satisfaction note is an undated satisfaction note. He thereafter, pointed that AO has noted that loose paper containing various invoices issued in the name of the assessee were found and on the perusal of which he noted that assessee had purchased construction material /design for a total consideration of Rs.4,96,71,274/- during the Financial Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. He also pointed to the satisfaction note wherein it has been noted that Balance Sheet of M/s. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and the ledger account of the assessee in the books of Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was found which demonstrated that assessee had received share capital amounting to Rs.1,50,00,000/- during the Financial Year 2015-16. Learned AR submitted that aforesaid material was not incriminating in nature which resulted in the detection of any undisclosed assets and income of the assessee. He thereafter submitted that the condition precedent for invocation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act are that the assets/documents belonging to/pertaining to/relating to an assessee found during search u/s 132 of the Act at the premises and in possession of third party must be incriminating in nature, leading to detection of undisclosed income of such assessee. He submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Singhad Technical Society reported in 397 ITR 344 has held that as per provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which is found in a search is to be pertained to the Assessment Year in respect of which an addition is being made and this being a jurisdictional fact, it should exist before making any impugned addition u/s 153C of the Act. He thereafter, placed reliance on various case laws and submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. reported in 380 ITR 612 after following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi) has held that when the documents that were seized had no relevance or bearing on the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years and could not possibly reflect any undisclosed income, the provision of Section 153C of the Act would not be applicable. He also placed reliance on the various other decisions cited in his synopsis. Learned Counsel of the assessee thereafter submitted that judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Raj Kumar Arora reported in 367 ITR 517 is not applicable on the facts of the present case and moreover the said decision has been distinguished by the Co-ordinate Bench of Lucknow Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Arun Agarwal [IT(SS)A No.253 & 254/luck/2020]. He therefore, vehemently argued that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Lucknow Tribunal, the impugned order passed by the AO is bad in law and it needs to be quashed.

9. Per contra, Learned CIT-DR, opposed the submissions made by Ld AR and supported the order of the lower authorities. Learned CIT-DR submitted that the law on the issue is clear as there is no ambiguity under it. He submitted that certain evidences were found during the course of search which are incriminating in nature and more particularly under the identical facts, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, being the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Raj Kumar Arora (supra) has categorically held that the AO has power to reassess the returns of assessee not only for the undisclosed income which was found during the search operation but also with regard to the material that was available at the time of the original assessment proceedings. He further submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Singhad Technical Society (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case because the AO in the satisfaction note in this case has clearly recorded the fact that the invoices (LP 4, LP 5, LP 10) with regard to the purchase of construction material were found for three financial years whereas in the case of Singhad Technical Society (supra), no such invoices or any other incriminating material for the year in which the search took place was found. He further stated that the bills that were found during the course of search would have clear bearing on the income of the assessee. Therefore he submitted that it cannot be construed that the bills/invoices found are not incriminating in nature.

10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on records. The assessee vide the aforesaid grounds is challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO in framing the assessment u/s 153C of the Act.

11. For the sake of clarity and effective adjudication of the dispute at hand, Section 153C of the Act is reproduced as under:

“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the AO is satisfied that,—

(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or

(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to,

a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over such other person and that AO shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that AO is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A:

Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person:

Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the AO shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated.

(2) Where books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned as referred to in sub-section (1) has or have been received by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person after the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A and in respect of such assessment year—

(a) no return of income has been furnished by such other person and no notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or

(b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or

(c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made,

before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person, such AO shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.”

12. From a bare reading of the aforesaid section it is evident that the requirement of law for exercising jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act are that in the event of a search any money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to the persons other than the searched person is found, then the AO of searched person, after recording his satisfaction, would transmit such material to the AO of the person other than the searched person. Thereafter, the AO of such other person would proceed against that person for framing the assessment as per the procedure prescribed under the Act i.e. as per the provision of Section 153A of the Act.

13. Undisputedly, in the case in hand, the AO has categorically stated that certain bills and vouchers were found and seized during the course of search. It was further recorded that certain evidences relating to investments was also found, hence it is not a case where there was no material with the AO for proceeding against the assessee u/s 153C of the Act. The question that whether such material would culminate into addition cannot be the subject matter for testing the validity of invocation of provisions of section 153C of the Act. By a plain reading of Section 153C of the Act, it is clear that law does not mandate such requirement that proceedings u/s 153C of the Act can be initiated only in the cases where the incriminating material would culminate into an addition. However, the contention of the assessee throughout has been that the proceedings initiated u/s 153C of the Act is contrary to the law as there was no incriminating material found during the course of search which could have conferred the jurisdiction upon the AO. Further in the absence of any incriminating material, the AO could not have proceeded u/s 153C of the Act in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi).

14. We do not see any merit in these contentions of the Learned Counsel for assessee for the reason that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case the CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora (supra) has unequivocally decided this issue in favour of the Revenue by holding that the AO would be empowered to assess and reassess the returns of assessee not only for the undisclosed income which was found during the search operation but also with regard to the material that was available at the time of the original assessment proceedings. A similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal (Third Member) in the case of Sunshine Infra State Pvt. Ltd. (103/Ald/2017 order dated 12^th April 2022). In the present case, the assessee being under the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the ratio of the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Arora (supra) holds the field as it is binding on all the authorities under the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. We therefore respectfully following the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Rajkumar Arora (supra) hereby dismiss the grounds of the assessee. Thus Ground Nos.1 to 1.3 are dismissed.

15. Vide Ground No.2 it is the contention of the assessee that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl.CIT) u/s 153D of the Act was a mechanical approval without application of mind and therefore assessment order was bad in law and contrary to the settled position of law.

16. Before us, Learned AR submitted that in the present case the approval u/s 153D was granted by Addl. CIT vide approval dated 17.12.2019 (as noted by the AO in last para of the assessment order). He submitted that assessee had obtained copy of the relevant correspondence between the AO and Addl. CIT seeking the aforesaid approval. He submitted that on perusing the aforesaid correspondence, it was found that the AO from its office situated at Ghaziabad had sent letter seeking approval u/s 153D of the Act to the office of Addl. CIT at Meerut and on the very next day the approval u/s 153D of the Act was granted by Addl. CIT. He pointed to the copy of the approval letter placed at page 37 of the paper book. He submitted that the perusal of the letter of the AO would reveal that AO had sent a combined letter of 42 draft assessment orders and the approval of the Addl. CIT was also given in a combined manner for all the five orders including that of the assessee. He submitted that it is a settled law that whenever the law requires a superior authority to accord approval to the action of the lower authorities, it should not be merely an empty formality or ritual but an important condition precedent which ought to be satisfied after due application of mind on the material placed before such authority. He submitted that various Courts have held that if such duty imposed on a superior authority is discharged mechanically, without application of mind, then such approval cannot be considered to be a valid approval. For the aforesaid proposition, he placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of CIT vs. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported in 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC), PCIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. in ITA No. 335/2015 (Del.)(HC). He therefore submitted that the approval given by Addl.CIT was not in accordance with the requirements of Section 153D of the Act and hence the assessment order is void ab initio, hence same is nullity in the eyes of law.

17. Per contra, Learned CIT DR opposed the submissions of the Ld. AR and submitted that the prescribed procedure was adopted by the authorities below and it was not a case of merely according the requisite approval mechanically. He further submitted that in the present case, the entire material was placed before the competent authority and after due consideration and application of mind, the requisite approval was granted by the competent authority. He further stated that the objections of the Ld. AR are purely guesswork and is not supported by any credible evidence.

18. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. From the records, it is evident that the entire case file was placed before the competent authority who after perusing the same and due application of mind had accorded the requisite approval and therefore in our view, the contentions of the assessee is merely based upon suspicion without being backed by any material evidence and hence we do not see any merit in the contention of the Ld AR. Thus this Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

19. In Ground Nos.3 to 7.1 the assessee has challenged the valuation adopted by the AO at Rs.1,58,86,369/- in respect of the construction of a property at Noida UP.

20. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noted that assessee had claimed that a sum of Rs.93,02,377/- was incurred for the construction of the property at Noida. However, the fair market value estimated by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) of the property in question was stated to be at Rs.1,58,86,369/-. Assessee was therefore, asked to explain the difference between the value declared by it and the fair market value assessed by the DVO. The assessee offered its explanation regarding expenditure incurred by the Assessee on construction of the property in question stating that no expenditure out of books was incurred by the assessee however the same was not accepted by AO. He thereafter, on the basis of the DVO report made addition of the differential sum amounting to Rs.65,83,992/- as unexplained investments u/s 69B of the Act. When the matter was carried before CIT(A), he upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now before us.

21. Apropos to these grounds, Learned AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and relied on the written submissions. The relevant contents of the written submissions are reproduced as under:

“58. In the present case, at the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the provisions of section 69B are per se not applicable, since the provisions of aforesaid section are applicable only where an investment exceeds the amount recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee. In the present case, the investments were made out of valid and accounted sources of income, which have even been accepted by the assessing officer. The issue raised is only whether the amount of declared investment matches the valuation. In other words, it is not a case of undisclosed investment exceeding the amount recorded in books of accounts, which is only sought to be covered by the provisions of section 69B of the Act and not otherwise. Section 69B is a deeming provisions and there cannot be deeming fiction between deeming provision as valuation report is an opinion and not the conclusive proof of investments made by Assessee. The provisions of said section are applicable when the assessing officer at the first place comes to a finding that assessee has made some excess investment outside the books of account. Since the aforesaid section creates a legal fiction, burden is on the Revenue to arrive at a finding, which needs to be supported by evidence or material, which leads to conclusion that real investment/expenditure exceeds the investment shown in the books of account. Once the assessing officer reaches such a finding, only then a reference can be made to the valuation officer to estimate the actual amount of investment in view of powers vested vide section 142A(1) of the Act. Provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 142A is only a machinery provision and do not override provisions of section 69B of the Act. The provisions of section 142A, on the other hand, in our respectful submission, get triggered only once it is found that provisions of section 69B are applicable and in that situation, power of reference to valuation officer has been given to only estimate the actual investment.

59. In the present assessment, it would be appreciated that no such finding was reached by the assessing officer or even Investigation Wing before making a reference to the valuation officer. There was no material nor any evidence, nor the same has been brought on record, which led to the inference at the first place, that excess investment than the amount recorded in book of account has been made by the appellant in the subject property. The reference was made to the valuation officer in the routine manner, without any material/evidence in the possession of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) leading to the inference that amount invested in construction was more than that recorded in the books of account without having any incriminating document/ material suggesting the actual investment is more than as shown by the Assessee. The sole basis of making the addition under section 69B in the assessment order is the report of the valuation officer, which, too, it is respectfully submitted, is only an estimate/opinion of the Valuation Officer and do not lead to the conclusion that actual investment is more than the amount recorded in the books of account. Under such circumstances, no addition could have been made under section 69B of the Act.”

22. Learned AR thereafter, submitted that the AO has grossly erred in adopting the valuation of property as per DVO report who in utter disregard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the various Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had adopted the CPWD rates instead of state PWD rates and did not grant any credit for the supervision charges which he should have granted keeping in view the fact that one of the Directors who was looking after the construction of building himself was a qualified civil engineer from IIT. He stated that had the AO adopted the state PWD rate and granted credit for supervision charges at 15%, which are reasonable, in that event no addition could have been made. In support of these contentions, Learned AR placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of the CIT vs. Rajkumar reported in 182 ITR 436. Learned Counsel for the assessee further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Mahajan [2014] 50 taxmann.com 206 (Punjab and Haryana) and submitted that the AO and the DVO ought to have allowed at least 10% of rebate for self supervisions charges.

23. Learned DR on the other hand opposed the submissions of Learned AR. He strongly supported the order of lower authorities and submitted that the AO is not a technical person and had arrived at fair market value of the property by taking help of DVO being expert person which is permissible under the law. He stated that the AO is empowered to take help of the expert to arrive at a fair market value and the action of the AO was as per the procedure prescribed under the Act. He further stated that merely because the AO did not bring any material suggesting that there was investment beyond the bills and vouchers as produced by the assessee do not mean that there was no investment beyond those recorded in the books of accounts. He stated that the estimate made by the expert in respect of the investment made in the property in question override the requirement of any evidence related to investment in the property. He further stated that when the fair market value is estimated by an expert at a higher fair market value then it would suggest that there was undisclosed and unexplained investment made by the Assessee. He thus supported the order of lower authorities.

24. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The factum of construction of the building and the incurrence of expenses thereof is not in dispute. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of expenses hence in the instant ground the issue revolves around the estimation of fair market value by the DVO adopting the CPWD rates for the valuation of FMV of the property. The AO undisputedly adopted the CPWD rate as recommended by the DVO for estimating fair market value of the property constructed by assessee. So far as the application of the rate for the purpose of arriving at the fair market value of the property is concerned, this issue is no more res integra. It has been decided in the catena of judgments that state PWD rates would be an appropriate guiding factor considering the local conditions for computing quantum of expenses incurred on construction of property in question. Learned CIT(DR) has not brought to our notice any binding precedent in support of his contentions that the fair market value estimated by the DVO override the requirement of any evidence proving the correct investment into the property. On the contrary, we find that under the similar circumstances, the Ld. Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Dr. R. Anburajan (ITA No.2014 to 2017/Mds/2011) had held that the reference to the DVO by the AO was not justified and also adoption of CPWD rates for valuation of building. We also find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Smt. V. Gajalakshmi [2011] 331 ITR 216 and decision of the Tribunal in the case of M. Selvaraj vs. ITO (2002) 258 ITR (AT) page 82 (Chennai). Further, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Talwar reported in [2004] 265 ITR 344 (Raj) has also approved the adoption of the PWD rates for determining the fair market value. Moreover, it is a settled law that the evidence showing or suggesting the incurring of actual expenditure ordinarily should be preferred over estimation of expenditure incurred unless the former suffers from patent defects of falsehood or incorrectness. It is all the more desirable that the direct evidence on ‘cost of construction’ should be preferred unless found unreliable or unacceptable to the indirect evidence on the point coming through the road of estimated valuation. The Revenue has not brought any material on record suggesting that the assessee had in fact incurred any other expenditure more than what has been recorded in the books of accounts or the entries made in the accounts are false.

25. It is well settled now that even if the AO proceeds for estimation of fair market value of the property, he is duty bound to apply state PWD rate in view of the binding precedents. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the impugned addition firstly for the reason that the AO ought to have brought direct evidences of incurrence of expenditure towards construction of property to demonstrate that the assessee had in fact incurred expenditure more than what is recorded in its books of accounts and secondly that the Hon’ble High jurisdictional High Court and the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal have unequivocally ruled that the state PWD rates should be adopted for computing the fair market value of the property situated in different states. Therefore, respectfully following binding precedents, we hereby direct AO to adopt PWD rates as prevalent at that point in time for ascertaining the correct and true figure of investment made by the assessee. In case, if the AO finds that upon applying prevailing PWD rates, fair market value of the property is lesser than the investment disclosed by the assessee, he shall delete the addition.

26. As far as the granting of rebate on account of self supervision charges is concerned, such rebate has been allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench and High Courts of different judicature. Even the Learned CIT(A) has given the rebate to the extent of 5% only meaning thereby that Revenue is not disputing the eligibility for such self supervision charges. Therefore, considering the experience, qualification and the expertise of the Director of the assessee company who is stated to have looked after the affairs of the construction of the building, the contribution made by such person in the saving of the expenses on construction cannot be overlooked in the absence of any contrary material on record. Under the facts of present case and looking to the totality of facts it would sub serve the interest of justice that if a rebate of self supervision @10% is granted to the assessee. Our view of granting self supervision rebate is also supported by the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Smt. Saroj Gupta vs. ITO (2007) 106 TTJ Delhi 1073 wherein the Tribunal has allowed the self supervision rebate at the rate of 10%. We accordingly direct the AO to grant the rebate on account of self supervision charges as observed hereinabove at the rate of 10%. Thus this ground of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove for statistical purpose only.

27. Ground Nos. 8 & 9 (including sub grounds) are with respect to addition made u/s 68 and 69C of the Act qua the share application money and payment of commission.

28. During the year under consideration, AO noticed that assessee had received share application money from two companies, namely Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Incredible India IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1.50 crore respectively. The AO for the reasons noted in the order, doubted about the credit worthiness of those companies and consequently the AO treated the receipt of money on account of share application money to be an accommodation entry and thereby he made addition of an aggregate amount of Rs.3 crore as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. AO further made addition of 1%, being commission for getting such accommodation entries, and made addition of Rs. 3 lakh u/s 69C of the Act. He thus made total addition of Rs. 3 crore + Rs 3 lakh on this account. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the Assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us.

29. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions as made before the lower authorities and further submitted that money received from M/s. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was through banking channels and was duly confirmed by the share applicants and in support of which he drew our attention to the copy of the confirmation which shows the receipt of money through banking channels. He also pointed to the Income Tax Return of the share applicant, the Balance Sheet of share Applicant Company, the company Master Data as downloaded from website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs to establish the identity of the share applicant.

30. With respect to the share application money received from Incredible India IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., he placed on record the copy of its PAN Card to demonstrate the identity of the investor. He also placed on record its bank statement showing the payment received from the account of the investor company to assessee-company, copy of its Balance Sheet showing the investment made by it in the assessee company.

31. He further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, AO had issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to both the aforesaid companies wherein those companies had duly confirmed about the investments made by them and had also filed supporting documents. He further pointed out that no adverse inference with regard to the transactions between the assessee and M/s. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was made by the AO of the share applicant in the assessment proceedings of the share applicant i.e. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. He thereafter submitted that the subsequent confirmation received u/s 133(6) establishes the fact that M/s. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was an existing entity duly assessed to tax and hence the identity was established.

32. As far as the addition with respect to the amount received from Incredible India IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, he submitted that there was no adverse material qua that company before the AO. He therefore submitted that assessee had duly discharged the onus to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and investors as per the requirement of the Income Tax Law and therefore the amount received by the assessee as share application money cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Private Ltd. (2010) 5 com 60 (Delhi), CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. 2011-TIOL-69-HC-DEL-IT and other decisions.

33. As far as the observation of the AO of having low returned income and therefore not having the capacity to make investment is concerned, he submitted that low return of income of lenders cannot be considered to be a guiding factor regarding the creditworthiness of such lender and in support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of Tribunal in the case of Supreme Build – Cap Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central Circle – 05, (ITA No.8476/Del/2019), Hindon Forge (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle -1 (ITA No. 3800/Del/2017) and M/s. Carissa Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.6448/Del/2016). He thereafter submitted that creditworthiness would means “capacity to pay” and income cannot be considered to be a criterion for advancing money and that the money could be advanced even out of the proceeds of the loan obtained by the lenders. He therefore submitted that in the present case the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants have been established and therefore, no adverse inference was warranted.

34. As far as the reliance placed by the AO on the statement of Shri Ghanshyam Gupta, the director of M/s. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, he submitted that the copy of the statement of Shri Ghanshyam Gupta was not made available to the assessee, nor any opportunity to cross examine him was provided to the assessee. He submitted that it is a settled law that any statement of third person recorded or any evidence collected behind the back of the assessee cannot be used against him without confronting it to the assessee and giving a fair chance of cross examination. He further submitted that Courts have held that it was obligatory on the part of the AO to collect sufficient evidences against the assessee to disprove the documentary evidences filed by the assessee and the failure to do so would make the addition unsustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 62 Taxmann.com 3 (2015). He also placed reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda [2018] 100 taxmann.com 526 (SC) and other decisions. He therefore submitted that since the Assessee has given requisite information regarding genuineness of the transaction, identity of the applicant and creditworthiness of the creditors, the addition of Rs.3 crore being the share application money and the addition of Rs.3 lakh u/s 69C of the Act being alleged unexplained commission expenditure deserves to be deleted.

35. Ld DR strongly opposed these submissions and supported the orders of lower authorities and further contended that looking to the nature of the transactions it can be easily inferred that the transaction was a colorable device to avoid tax liability. He further contended that creditworthiness of the share applicant has not been proved by the assessee by furnishing sufficient evidences as envisaged under the Act.

36. In the rejoinder, learned AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee had given requisite information proving the genuineness of the transaction, identity of the share applicants and their creditworthiness which was also confirmed by the share applicants and that the Revenue has not made any addition in the case of share applicants which goes to prove the genuineness of the transaction and credit worthiness of the share applicants. He further stated that the AO has not proved out about the non availability of the funds with the share applicants nor has he established that the funds belonging to the assessee company were routed through the share applicants by using a dubious method. He therefore reiterated that the addition made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) are unjustified and therefore needs to be deleted. He also placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements to buttress his contentions, that there is no material available on records to prove that the transaction was not genuine. To buttress the contentions Ld. AR relied upon following judicial pronouncements:

CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment P. Ltd. (2010) 45 DTR (Del) 281;
CIT vs. Kishrilal Construction Ltd. (2010) 5 com 60 (Del);
CIT vs. Ganeshwari Metals P. Ltd. (2013-TIOL-96-HC-Del-IT;
CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (2012-TIOL-236-HC-Del-IT (SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble SC vide order dated 27.09.2012 in CC 15640/2012);
CIT Vs. Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. 2011-TIOL-69-HC-Del-IT;
CIT Vs. Pratham Projects & Finlease Ltd. ITA No.638/2010 Del HC;
CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 41 DTR 139 (Del);
ITO vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd. 2015-TIOL-1082-ITAT-Del;
Root Invest P. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2015-TIOL—2338-ITAT-Del;
ITO Vs. Reliance Marketing P. Ltd. 2015-TIOL-319-ITAT-Del;
ACIT Vs. Divine (India) Infrastructure P. Ltd. 2015-TIOL-106-ITAT-Del.

37. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on records. The grievance of the assessee in the present grounds is that the authorities below have erroneously made addition u/s 68 being the share application money received by the assessee and the addition made u/s 69C regarding the payment of alleged commission for receiving the share application money from the aforementioned share applicants.

38. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee had placed before the AO supporting evidences regarding the identity of the share applicants, genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the share applicants. However, the AO did not accept the evidences as placed by the assessee in support of his claim regarding share application money. The basis of making addition being the share application money received from Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is stated to be a statement made by the director of the share applicant, namely shri Ghanshyam Gupta. It is the contention of the Ld. AR that the assessee was not provided any copy of the statement relied upon by the AO and further no cross examination of Shri Ghanshyam Gupta was allowed to the assessee. It is also the grievance of the assessee that by not affording opportunity of cross examination of Shri Ghanshyam Gupta has seriously harmed the valuable legal right of the assessee thereby it caused prejudice to the assessee and resulted into gross miscarriage of justice. Even before this Tribunal the Revenue could not place any evidence suggesting that the money belonging to the assessee was in fact routed through these transactions. The law is well settled in this regard that the assessee is required to prove the genuineness of the transaction, identity of the share applicants and their credit worthiness. In the present case, the assessee had placed on record the evidences related to the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. It is noticed from the record that the assessee had filed income tax returns of the share applicants which is not disputed by the Revenue which goes to prove that the share applicants are income tax payees. It was also pointed out by the Ld AR that the share applicants were subjected to scrutiny assessment for the year under consideration and the concerned assessing authorities did not find any fault in the transaction of investments made by the respective share applicants which has not been rebutted by the Revenue. That goes to prove that the Revenue accepted the investment by share applicants as genuine as no action had been taken in the case of share applicants.

39. As far as the addition with respect to the receipt of share application money from Incredible India IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the Revenue has not rebutted the fact that in the case of share applicant the transaction in question has been duly accepted by the concerned assessing officer. Furthermore, the statement of Shri Ghanshyam Gupta was recorded at the back of the assessee and no cross examination of Shri Ghanshyam Gupta was provided to the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (in Appeal No. 1221 of 2006) has held that in the absence of the statement being tested, it cannot be said that it should be believed completely to the prejudice of the assessee. It was further held that the tribunal was right in its view that in the absence of Manoj Agarwal being made available for cross examination despite repeated request by the assessee, this statement could not be relied upon to his detriment. Therefore we find merit in the submissions of the Ld AR that when the evidences are collected at the back of the assessee, the same evidences were required to be confronted with the assessee to sub serve the interest of principles of natural justice. It is a well established principle of law that the cross-examination is a valuable right and a fundamental rule of legal jurisprudence. Looking to the facts of the present case, the assessee had placed before the AO the requisite evidences regarding the investments made by the share applicants. Moreover, in the case of the share applicant namely M/s. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Incredible India IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., qua the transaction in question no adverse inference has been made in the assessment proceedings by the concerned AOs. Even no action having been taken by the Revenue against the share applicants on this issue as has been brought to our notice. The AO has attributed to the assessee the share application money without bringing any credible evidence in support of the same. We are of the view that it was incumbent upon the assessing authority to make necessary enquiry and bring contrary material to rebut the claim of the assessee regarding share application money being genuine and did not belong to it/or routed through the share applicants its own money. Considering the peculiarity of the facts, we are of the view that in the present case, the additions have been made purely on the basis of statement recorded at the back of the assessee without providing an opportunity of cross examination of the maker of the statements. Moreover, the statements do not reveal the specific details of the transaction with the assessee and the share applicant. Merely a sweeping statement without supported by relevant evidences cannot form the basis of making the addition. It is well settled that the addition cannot be made purely on the basis of suspicion and the AO is required to bring material evidences in its support. In the instant case, the AO has not brought any adverse material suggesting that the assessee had devised a colorable device for the purpose of routing its own money. In the absence of such evidence and in the light of the binding decisions cited hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the impugned addition cannot be sustained in the facts of the present case. We accordingly hereby direct the AO to delete the addition.

40. Since we have deleted the addition made by AO regarding the share application money, therefore, looking to the totality of the facts and considering the submissions of the parties, the addition made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission thereon u/s 69C also cannot be sustained. Hence, the AO is hereby directed to delete the addition of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus the ground appeal of the assessee is allowed.

41. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose only.

Now we take up assessee’s appeal in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1128/Del/2021 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021) for assessment year A.Y. 2017-18

42. The grounds raised in the present appeal reads as under:

1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 22.12.2019 passed by the assessing officer under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

1.1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the impugned proceedings initiated by the assessing officer under section 153C were beyond jurisdiction and bad in law, in the absence of satisfaction note being recorded by the assessing officer in possession of the seized documents gathered during to search under section 132 conducted in the case of another person, viz., Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav on 10.11.2017.

1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the impugned proceedings initiated by the assessing officer under section 153C were beyond jurisdiction and bad in law, since no incriminating material/evidence/assets belonging to/relating to the appellant suggesting undisclosed income/investment were found in the course of search under section 132 at the premises of Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav, leave alone such material not being handed over to the assessing officer of the appellant and consequently illegal satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer of the appellant.

1.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that (i) the invoices for purchase of construction material incurred by the appellant towards construction of property at Noida, which was duly recorded and disclosed in the books of account, constituted incriminating material within the meaning of section 153C of the Act, merely because the value of such construction expenses was determined by the DVO, on a subsequent reference made by DDIT(Inv.), at a higher value for which no adverse material of excess construction cost was available, both at the time of search as also post search investigation, as well as assessment proceedings.

Without Prejudice

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.43,96,935/- out of total addition of Rs.1,64,83,690/-, and not deleting the aforesaid entire addition, which was made by the assessing officer under section 69B of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property on the basis of higher fair market value thereof determined by the DVO.

5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under section 69B on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT(Inv.), on the ground that the assessing officer was not empowered to refer the aforesaid report, without an independent reference to DVO under section 142A of the Act.

5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the assessing officer was competent to refer the report of DVO submitted pursuant to reference made by DDlT(Inv.) under section 132(9D) of the Act since the same DVO – (i) was competent to issue valuation report under section 142A, (ii) as also issue report using the same method of valuation.

6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the entire addition made by the assessing officer under section 69B on the basis of valuation report of DVO, since the addition was not based on any evidence of unexplained investment made by the appellant and was merely made by estimating the fair market value of the property which was outside the scope of provisions of section 69B r.w.s. 142A of the Act.

7.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the DVO had adopted the appropriate method to determine the fair market value of the property and adopting CPWD rates for property situated in Noida, which was near to Delhi whereas PWD rates was not appropriate which was meant for entire state of UP.

43. Before us, Ld AR submitted that the grounds raised in the present appeal are identical to that raised by the assessee in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 except for the year and the amounts involved and therefore the arguments made by him while arguing the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2016-17 may be taken as arguments made for the grounds raised in the present appeal. Ld DR did not have any objections regarding the aforesaid submissions of the Ld AR and further submitted that even he also would adopt the same arguments as made while arguing the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 in respect of the corresponding grounds.

44. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. The assessee has raised ground nos. 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2 against validity of assessment.

45. Apropos to these grounds our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 and since there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as admitted by both the parties before us, our findings on the issue while deciding the grounds in assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 will apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal of the assessee. Hence, the Ground Nos.1, its sub grounds and ground No.2 of the assessee appeal are dismissed.

46. Ground Nos.3 to 7 are in respect of the merits of sustaining the addition of Rs.43,96,935/-.

47. These grounds relates to the addition made by estimating the cost of construction on the basis of the report submitted by the DVO. Similar addition was made in A.Y. 2016-17 in ITA No.1127/Del/2021. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case. We have decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case Raj Kumar vs. CIT (supra) and other decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the tribunal. For the same reasoning we hereby direct the AO to adopt the state PWD rates for estimating the cost of construction and further grant a deduction of self supervision charges at the rate of 10%. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated hereinbefore for statistical purposes.

48. The other grounds being general in nature needs no separate adjudication.

49. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1128/Del/2021 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

We now take up Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1499/Del/2021 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021) for A.Y. 2017-18 in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. as a lead case.

50. The solitary effective ground in Revenue’s appeal reads as under:

1. “On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO to the tune of Rs.1,20,86,755/- on account of unexplained construction in property. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company had failed to produce any bills/vouchers in respect of difference amount of Rs.1,64,83,690/-, during the assessment proceedings as well as at the time of valuation done by DVO. And had also failed to explain the source thereof despite giving several opportunities vide notices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

51. Before us, both the parties admitted that the ground raised in the present appeal of the Revenue is interconnected with the Ground Nos. 3 to 7.1 raised in assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18.

52. Before us, Ld. DR took us through the observations made by AO and submitted that in view of the categorical findings by the AO, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the additions made by AO. He therefore submitted that the order of CIT(A) be set aside and the findings of the AO be restored.

53. On the other hand Learned AR of the assessee adopted the same arguments as in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17. He thus supported the order of CIT(A) and submitted that the ld CIT(A) has rightly taken note of the fact that the assessee had incurred expenses of Rs.1,20,86,755/- on construction from 01.04.2017 till the date of inspection by the DVO i.e. on 15.02.2018 and that the DVO did not consider the same as expenditure.

54. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground of the Revenue is interconnected with the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Since the connected issue has been elaborately dealt by us in preceding paras. So far the question of adopting the PWD rate is concerned, however in our considered view the AO ought to have taken into consideration the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee on the construction of the property till the date of inspection by the DVO and ought to have given the setoff of the same. We therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of CIT(A). Thus the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

55. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Now we take up Assessee’s appeal in the case of Gajendra Singh in ITA No.1116/Del/2021 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021) for A.Y. 2016-17 :

56. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the AO under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,82,141/- which was made by the AO under section 69 of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property on the basis of higher fair market value thereof determined by the DVO.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition of alleged unexplained investment on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.

5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under section 69 on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT(Inv.), on the ground that the AO was not empowered to refer the aforesaid report, without an independent reference to DVO under section 142A of the Act.

5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the AO was competent to refer the report of DVO submitted pursuant to reference made by DDIT(Inv.) under section 132(9D) of the Act since the same DVO – (i) was competent to issue valuation report under section 142A, (ii) as also issue report using the same method of valuation.

Without Prejudice

6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the entire addition made by the AO under section 69 on the basis of valuation report of DVO, since the addition was not based on any evidence of unexplained investment made by the appellant, more so after search conducted under section 132, and was merely made by estimating the fair market value of the property which was outside the scope of provisions of section 69 r.w.s. 142A of the Act.

7. Further without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not rejecting the report of DVO which suffered from several inaccuracies qua the method of valuation followed, like adoption of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, discounting of 20% on account of personal supervision, etc.

7.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the DVO had adopted the appropriate method to determine the fair market value of the property.

57. Before us, Ld. AR at the outset submitted that ground Nos.1, 3 and 4 raised in the present appeal are similar to the grounds raised in assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and therefore the submissions made while arguing that appeal are adopted for the present grounds also. Ld. DR also adopted the same arguments as were made in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 regarding the issues under appeal.

58. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The issues raised in the present grounds are related to the validity of the assessment u/s 153A of the Act. Since this issue has been decided by us against the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in ITA No.1127/Del/2021, we for the same reasoning, dismiss the Ground No.1, 3 & 4 and corresponding findings on this issue in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) will apply Mutatis mutandis to the present grounds as well. Thus the grounds of the assessee are dismissed.

59. With regard to Ground Nos. 2, 5 & 6, these grounds are against sustaining the addition of Rs.2,82,141/- made in respect of the difference in fair market value of the property as declared by the assessee and adopted by AO on the basis of DVO report.

60. The facts relating to these grounds are that the AO while framing the assessment made the addition of Rs.2,82,141/- as unexplained investments. It was noticed by the AO that a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the hotel of the assessee situated at Agra Marg, Sanjay Nagar, Agra which was constructed in the F.Y. 2015-16. It was observed that as per the Valuation Report of the Govt. Valuer, the cost of construction of the hotel for F.Y. 2015-16 was determined at Rs.17,09,700/- but as per the books of accounts, the declared construction value was at Rs.14,27,559/-. The AO therefore treated the difference in the amounts (i.e. the amount as determined in valuation report and that declared by the assessee in the books of accounts) as unexplained investments and made its addition.

61. Assessee preferred appeal against the action of AO before the Learned CIT(A) who after considering the submissions upheld the action of AO and sustained the additions. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

62. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and further submitted that had the Govt. Valuer adopted the state PWD rates instead of CPWD rates as adopted by DVO in the present case, there would not have been any addition. He, therefore, reiterated the submissions as made in the case Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He also placed a chart computing the fair market value of the property in question for different years after considering the State PWD rate and deduction on account of self supervision charges. For the sake of clarity, the chart so submitted by the Ld. counsel is reproduced as under:

Assessment YearA	Amount estimated by DVOB	Amount declared by assessee C	Estimation by taking PWD rates i.e. 80% of CPWD rates taken by DVOD	Rebate for self- supervision charges @10% E	Total Value F=D-E
2016-17	17,09,700	14,27,559	13,67,760	1,70,970	11,96,790
2017-18	50,51,400	42,17,895	40,41,120	5,05,140	35,35,980
2018-19	49,37,100	41,22,441	39,49,680	4,93,710	34,55,970
Total Expenses	116,98,200	97,67,895	93,58,560	11,69,820	81,88,740

63. He therefore submitted that considering the above chart, if the state PWD rate is applied and deduction of self supervision charges is granted, in that event no addition would be called for.

64. On the contrary, the Ld DR opposed the submissions made by Ld. AR and he reiterated his submissions as made while arguing the identical ground in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).

65. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is the contention of the assessee that if the PWD rates & self – supervision charges are allowed then there would not be any occasion to make addition. We find merit into this contention in view of our decision in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as admitted by both the parties. In the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we have examined the issue elaborately and decided the issue in favour of the assessee by directing the AO to adopt the State PWD rates for the purpose of arriving at fair market value of the property. For the same reasoning, in this case also we hereby direct the AO to adopt the State PWD rates and also grant deduction on account of self supervision at 10%. The AO is hereby directed to delete the impugned addition in view of the working given by the Assessee in the form of chart which is reproduced hereinabove. Thus the grounds of the assessee are allowed.

66. In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.1116/Del/2021 is partly allowed.

Now we take assessee’s appeals in the case of Gajendra Singh in ITA Nos.1117 & 1118/Del/2021 for A.Ys. 2017-18 & 201819 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021):

67. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.1117/Del/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18:

1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the assessing officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.8,33,505/- which was made by the assessing officer under section 69 of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property on the basis of higher fair market value thereof determined by the DVO.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition of alleged unexplained investment on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.

5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under section 69 on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT(Inv.), on the ground that the assessing officer was not empowered to refer the aforesaid report, without an independent reference to DVO under section 142A of the Act.

5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the assessing officer was competent to refer the report of DVO submitted pursuant to reference made by DDIT(Inv.) under section 132(9D) of the Act since the same DVO – (i) was competent to issue valuation report under section 142A, (ii) as also issue report using the same method of valuation.

Without Prejudice

6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the entire addition made by the assessing officer under section 69 on the basis of valuation report of DVO, since the addition was not based on any evidence of unexplained investment made by the appellant, more so after search conducted under section 132, and was merely made by estimating the fair market value of the property which was outside the scope of provisions of section 69 r.w.s. 142A of the Act.

7. Further without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not rejecting the report of DVO which suffered from several inaccuracies qua the method of valuation followed, like adoption of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, discounting of 20% on account of personal supervision, etc.

7.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the DVO had adopted the appropriate method to determine the fair market value of the property.

68. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.1118/Del/2021 for A.Y. 2018-19:

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.8,14,659/- which was made by the assessing officer under section 69 of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property on the basis of higher fair market value thereof determined by the DVO.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition of alleged unexplained investment on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.

5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under section 69 on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT(Inv.), on the ground that the assessing officer was not empowered to refer the aforesaid report, without an independent reference to DVO under section 142A of the Act.

Without Prejudice

7. Further without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not rejecting the report of DVO which suffered from several inaccuracies qua the method of valuation followed, like adoption of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, discounting of 20% on account of personal supervision, etc.

7.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the DVO had adopted the appropriate method to determine the fair market value of the property.

69. The identical grounds in these appeals are related to addition on account of unexplained investments in the construction of the property and also challenged the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act and the approval obtained u/s 153D of the Act.

70. Learned Authorities Representative of the parties have adopted the same arguments as were addressed while arguing the matter in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 (supra).

71. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. Since the facts of the present case are identical to the facts in the case of ITA No.1127/Del/2021 (supra), we therefore for the reasons stated hereinabove while deciding the issue in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 and for similar reasons the grounds related to the alleged unexplained investments made in the construction of the property are also allowed and corresponding findings on these issues in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 will also apply Mutatis mutandis. The grounds raised against the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153A and approval obtained u/s 153D of the Act are dismissed for the same reasons as were stated in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 (supra). In the result, the grounds in both the Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.

72. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.1117/Del/2021 and 1118/Del/2021 are partly allowed.

Now we take ITA No.1122/Del/2021 in the case of Dinesh Yadav for A.Y. 2018-19 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021):

1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 143(3), since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 12.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.20,00,000/-, made by the AO under section 69A alleging cash found during the course of search to the aforesaid extent as unexplained money of the appellant, by rejecting the explanation offered for such possession on surmises and conjectures.

73. Ground No.1 and sub ground is with respect to is challenging the assessment framed u/s 153C to be beyond jurisdiction and bad in law.

74. Before us both the parties have submitted that the Ground raised is identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and the submissions made therein are identical.

75. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before us both the parties have submitted that the issue raised in the present grounds are identical to the issue raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. We have for the reasons given herein while deciding the grounds in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 have dismissed the grounds. We for the same reasoning as in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 dismiss the grounds in the present appeal.

76. Ground No.2 is with respect to the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act being unexplained cash found.

77. During the course of search u/s 132 of the Act at the residential premises of the assessee at Faridabad, cash amounting to Rs.22,85,600/- was seized. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash. Assessee made the submissions explaining the source of cash which was not found acceptable to AO. AO thereafter considered the entire cash found to be unexplained and made the addition of Rs.22,85,600/- on substantive basis. He also made the addition of the aforesaid amount in the hands of Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav.

78. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee granted relief to the extent of Rs.2,85,600/- and upheld the balance addition of Rs.20,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us.

79. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before lower authorities and further submitted that cash was generated by assessee through the sale of old paintings which were bequeathed to his wife by his late father in law. His father in law had affection for collecting various paintings which were accumulated over the past several years. He submitted that during the F.Y. 2017-18, the said paintings were sold for cash and the proceeds of the sale were kept at the residence. He pointed to the table of the paintings sold which is listed at pages 7 & 8 is as under:

Sr. No.	Painting Name	Artist Name	Year of Painting	Valuation as on 31.03.2007	Cash selling Price
1.	My Dream City	Shamnath	1955	95,000	1,50,000
2.	Puzzled Man	Kirpal Singh	1955	95,000	80,000
3.	Sanjhi Paper Cut	Madan	1955	81,000	1,40,000
4.	Pichwai Painting	Nala Ram	1964	90,000	70,000
5.	The Folk Dance	Aparna	1955	81,000	1,70,000
6.	The Music Backon	Jeet	1955	63,000	1,00,000
7.	The Road to Heaven	Damyanti	1964	67,000	1,20,000
8.	The Serene Walk	Bhawandla	1955	95,000	1,50,000
9.	The Waterfall	Dilip Narayan	1964	67,000	70,000
10.	Tree of Life	Bal Krishan	1955	95,000	1,70,000
11.	Udaka	Bharat Lal	1955	95,000	60,000
12.	A collage on a hill	Bhawesh	1964	90,000	1,70,000
13.	Water Flowers	Indraj	1955	95,000	80,000
14.	Charulata	Nala Ram	1964	67,000	1,20,000
15.	A Meaning Making Capacity	Mahender Lal	1955	95,000	1,80,000
16.	Dharna	Bhaskar	1964	90,000	1,70,000
	Total			13,61,000	20,00,000

80. With respect to AO’s observation about the no details with regards to the address, PAN and confirmation of the buyers of the paintings, he submitted that there is no legal requirement to obtain from any purchaser about the complete details consisting of PAN No., ITR Acknowledgements and bank statements etc. in respect of cash transaction less than Rs.2,00,000/-. He further stated that since the sale of each painting was less than Rs.2,00,000/- to a single buyer in a day, Assessee also was not required to obtain KYC/PAN of the customers as per the provisions of Section 269ST r.w.s 139A of the Act. He further stated that since the paintings were held as personal/capital assets, no invoice was issued to any of the buyers and nor it was possible to obtain confirmation of the sale of the paintings. He further submitted that for making addition merely the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act at the time of search cannot be relied upon. In respect of the aforesaid contentions, he placed reliance on various decisions. He therefore submitted that addition made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) be deleted.

81. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and further submitted that no evidence about the sale of paintings was submitted by the assessee either before the AO or before the CIT(A) and in such a situation, no interference to the order of CIT(A) is called for.

82. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the unexplained cash of Rs.20,00,000/-, which has been added u/s 69A of the Act. Before us, it is the contention of the assessee that the cash found at the time of search was out of the sale proceeds of the various paintings which assessee’s wife had acquired from her late father who had hobby to collect the valuable paintings. The late father in law of the assessee had sufficient source of income to make such purchases. Further the submissions of the assessee about the cash generated out of the sale of the paintings have not been controverted by Revenue by placing any adverse evidence on record. At the same time, it is also a fact that assessee has also not produced any evidence that was called for by the AO regarding details of purchases of paintings. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the disallowance of claim of assessee regarding sale of paintings in the present facts of the case is excessive and arbitrary. We therefore in interest of justice restrict the addition to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- i.e. 30% of total disallowance made by the AO and rest of the addition is hereby deleted. Thus the ground of assessee is partly allowed.

83. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1122/Del/2021 is partly allowed. Now we take ITA No.1123/Del/2021 in the case of Smt. Shashi Yadav for A.Y. 2018-19 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021):

84. It is contended by the Learned Representatives of the parties that the effective issue in present appeal is related to unexplained investments in the property at Indirapuram, Gaziabad.

85. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 10.11.2017 at the premises of the assessee and Rajeshwar Singh Yadav Group of cases. Consequently, notice u/s 153A was issued and served on the assessee. In response to which assessee electronically filed return of income on 31.07.2018 declaring income of Rs.15,61,110/-. Thereafter, case was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, AO observed that in the course of search proceedings at the residential premises of Shri B. B. Goel, certain pages number 70 & 71 of Annexure LP 1 was found and seized. It was observed that LP 1 reflected the investment in Shop No. 387, 382 and 383. The AO on the basis of DVO report was of the view that the assessee had made unexplained investment. Therefore in the assessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2019 AO assessed the total income at Rs.1,25,48,114/-.

86. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 12.08.2021 in Appeal No.CIT(A)-IV/KNP/11515/2019-20 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds:

1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the AO under section 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impuged order passed under section 143(3)/153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,09,87,004/- made by the AO under section 69 of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, on the basis of some documents found during the course of independent search at premises of third party, i.e., Shri B.B. Goel, containing name of, inter alia, appellant with amount invested in the aforesaid property.

3.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that, on reading the aforesaid seized documents if follows that cash was paid by the appellant towards purchase of impugned property.

3.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid document was a dumb document and the inferences drawn by the AO /CIT(A) were based on surmises and conjectures; and the presumptions under section 132(4A) and 292C could not have been drawn against the appellant since the document was not found from the premises of the appellant.

3.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made by the AO, without bringing on record any adverse statement or providing any opportunity to the appellant to cross examine Mr. B. B. Goel, from whose premises aforesaid document was found, to substantiate the contents of such documents, before drawing adverse inference / conclusion against the appellant on assumption and presumptions.

3.4 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the aforesaid addition was beyond the scope of the provisions of section 69 of the Act.

3.5 Further, without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in assuming the alleged excess investment during the year under consideration, whereas if the assumption drawn by the AO/ CIT(A) was to accepted, then the aforesaid excess investment would have been made in the preceding year and consequently impugned addition was not warranted in the year under consideration.

Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant crave leave to add, alter, amend or without any ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

87. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are against the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153C and approval granted u/s 153D of the Act. Ld. AR stated that these grounds are identical to the ground raised by the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and therefore he adopted the same submissions made therein. The Ld. DR also adopted the same submissions as were addressed in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 (supra).

88. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Since the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the grounds raised in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 therefore taking a consistent view and for the same reasons the ground Nos. 1 & 2 are dismissed.

89. Ground No.3 is with respect to the assessee challenging the addition of Rs.1,09,87,004/- made u/s 69 of the Act.

90. AO has noted that during the course of search proceedings u/s 132 of the Act at the residential premises of Shri B. B. Goel at Indirapuram Habitat Centre, Ghaziabad, Pages 70 & 71 of Annexure – LP -1 was found and seized. The assessee was asked to submit the explanation as her name appeared on page 71 of the annexure. AO has noted that the aforesaid Annexure displayed the description of the Shop Nos. 387, 382 & 383 that were found to be in the name of family member of the assessee. It was further noted that Shop No.384 which was shown in the name of the assessee had mention about the figure of Rs.1,73,84,500/- which the AO considered to be the cost but as per the assessee the investment was of Rs.63,67,496/-. Therefore the AO was of the view that the difference of Rs.1,09,87,004 which was approximately 60% of the total value, alleged to have been paid in cash from unaccounted money. Assessee was asked to explain as to why aforesaid difference not be added to the income as unexplained investment. Assessee inter alia denied having any information with respect to the documents seized. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by AO that assessee along with her son Shri Manish Yadav was having a joint venture in M/s. Clavecon India Pvt. Ltd. wherein assessee and Shri Yugank Goel were directors in the company. AO also noted that the Shri B. B. Goel is a contractor in Irrigation department where Shri Rajeshwar Yadav, husband of the assessee worked as a Superintending Engineer. AO therefore concluded that families of Shri B. B. Goel and the assessee knew each other. AO was further of the view that Page 71 of Annexure – LP – 1 found at the residential premises of Shri B. B. Goel indicated that the family of Shri B. B. Goel and the family of the assessee had jointly invested in a project namely the Habitat Centre and it also reflected that the cost of shop was at Rs.25,000/- per sq.ft. for which according to AO, approximately 60% of the cost was paid in cash from unaccounted money. AO noted that no convincing reply was furnished by the assessee about the difference. He therefore treated the difference of the amount found in Annexure LP1 and the amount disclosed by the assessee amounting to Rs.1,09,87,004/- as unexplained investment towards purchase of shop No. 384 and made its addition u/s 69 of the Act.

91. Aggrieved by the order of AO assessee carried the matter before CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us.

92. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before lower authorities. He further contended that the entire addition has been made purely on the basis of conjectures and surmises without being supported by any incriminating material. He further submitted that admittedly the diary was found at 3rd party’s premises and it is a settled position of law that if anything found in possession of any person then the onus would be on such person to explain the contents of the documents and to prove that it does not belong to such person. In support of his aforesaid contentions, Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Praveen Juneja (ITA No. 56/2017 dated 14.07.2017) to buttress the contention that merely on the basis of a single document without making any further inquiries, the addition was not justified. The AO made no attempt to find out that what was the cost of investment by making field inquiries from other similar purchasers of the property. He further contended that since the impugned loose sheets were found at the premises of the third party, the presumption u/s 132(4A) and 292C of the Act thereof cannot be applied against the assessee. He further submitted that since the said papers have not been found from the possession or the premises of the assessee, it cannot be attributed to the assessee. In support of the aforesaid contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Tribunal in case of Straptex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum), ACIT vs. Kishore Lal Balwant Rai [2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chd.), Jai Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT (Jaipur) (URO), Saif Ali Khan Mansurali vs. ACIT 13 ITR (Trib) 204 (Mum.). He further submitted that law is well settled that mere scribbling/jottings on a piece of paper does not constitute any credible evidence to be used against the assessee, more so, if it is not found from the possession of the assessee. He therefore submitted that the addition made by the AO and upheld by CIT(A) be deleted.

93. Learned CIT-DR opposed the submissions made by Ld. AR and supported the order of lower authorities. He contended that the lower authorities were justified in treating the difference as unexplained investment. He further submitted that it is a normal practice that the part payment of sale consideration is made in cash in property transactions and therefore the registration by the stamp valuation authority at lower rate as per the stamp valuation Act such amount does not reflect the true and correct fair market value of the property. He therefore, submitted that the AO has rightly treated the amount mentioned in diary as unexplained investment.

94. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the additions have been made purely on the basis of the certain loose papers found at the premises of third party. It is also undisputed that except the loose papers, there are no other documents suggesting that assessee had entered into an agreement at a higher rate than disclosed in the sale deed. The AO has also not brought any other sale instances of similarly situated properties. The law is well settled that there has to be corroborative evidences to prove any figure written in the loose sheet of paper. Moreover, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V. C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410, that writing in his diary by a third party is not a reliable evidence and same cannot be viewed as an evidence. Moreover, the statement of B. B. Goel also does not support the case of Revenue as he has categorically stated that the figures written are merely projections about future profit. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D K Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 230 (Del) to buttress the contention that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the explanation of Shri B. B. Goel was not correct and that the notings/jottings were in fact related to the investments of the undisclosed amount. Further, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that any action was taken by Revenue in the case of seller of property. Considering the totality of the facts placed on record, it is evident that the lower authorities have made addition purely on the basis of the notings in diary found in the possession of Shri B. B. Goel and the statement recorded in this regard. The Revenue did not provide opportunity of cross examination to the assessee in respect of any statement made by Shri B. B. Goel. The AO has also not brought any other material suggesting the actual fair market value of the property in question is higher than what is recorded in the sale deed. Undisputedly, transfer of a property would always be between two parties one being seller and other the purchaser. It cannot be assumed that one party disclosed correct figure of consideration and the other party concealed the true value of the property. There is no mention about action taken by Revenue in the case of seller who had sold the shops to the assessee. It was incumbent upon the AO to demonstrate the correct fair market value of the property when he was not accepting the value disclosed by the assessee. In the absence of such finding with supporting evidences, any addition made on the basis of presuming that the figures written by the third party in his diary is the fair market value of property, would not be justified and against the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V. C. Shukla (supra) and followed in other catena of judgments. We therefore respectfully following the binding precedents on this issue relied by the Ld. AR hold that the addition has been made purely on the basis of surmises and we therefore direct for it deletion. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

95. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Now we take ITA No.1119/Del/2021 in the case of Smt. Poonam Yadav for A.Y. 2015-16 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021):

96. In this case, in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, assessee electronically filed her return of income on 31.08.2019 declaring income of Rs.6,60,330/-. Thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act vide order dated 25.12.2019 and the total income was determined at Rs.56,60,330/- inter alia by making addition of Rs.50,00,000/-u/s 68 of the Act.

97. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 09.08.2021 in Appeal No.CIT(A)-IV/KNP/11368/2019-20 granted partial relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.20,00,000 in respect of the loan received from M/s New Delhi Buildcon Ltd.

98. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds:

1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 passed by the AO under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- made under section 68 deeming the unsecured loan of that amount received from M/s. Zarf Trading & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credit, since the appellant could not file documents depicting creditworthiness of the lender.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition of alleged unexplained cash credit on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.

Without Prejudice

5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the aforesaid addition without appreciating that the appellant had discharged preliminary onus placed upon it and the AO had failed to discharge the burden of conducting necessary enquiries before deeming the loan received through proper bank channel as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act.

6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition failing to appreciate that the same could not have been deemed as unexplained cash credit/income of the appellant since the loan so received was repaid during the relevant previous year itself.

7. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the AO had erred in applying section 68, since the same was not applicable on appellant, who was not maintaining books of account.

99. Ground Nos.3 & 4 are against the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153A and approval granted u/s 153D of the Act.

100. It is submitted on behalf of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021(supra) and therefore, they have same arguments to make. Further, it was contended that submissions made and contentions raised in that case may be treated as the part of submissions of this appeal as well.

100. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view against the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and dismissed the grounds related to the framing of assessment u/s 153A of the Act and approval u/s 153D. Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore for the same reasoning the Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are dismissed and our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds. Thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed.

102. With respect to Ground No.2, Learned AR submitted that the issue is with respect to the addition of Rs.30,00,000/-made u/s 68 of the Act being the amount of unsecured loan received from M/s. Zarf Trading & Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

103. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and on perusing the details noticed that assessee had received unsecured loan during the year under consideration aggregating to Rs.50,00,000/- from two parties namely; M/s. New Delhi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.20,00,000/-) and M/s. Zarf Trading & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.30,00,000/-). The assessee was asked to furnish the complete details, postal address, PAN No. and to justify the genuineness of the transaction and also prove the creditworthiness of the parties. Assessee made the submissions and inter alia submitted that she has not taken any unsecured loan during the year under consideration. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO as he was of the view that in reply to question No.18 of questionnaire dated 27.09.2019, assessee had stated of taking unsecured loans. AO noted that before him, assessee did not file any details or documents or provide relevant details like confirmation duly signed, ITR Acknowledgment, Bank statement of those parties. He therefore concluded that assessee has failed to justify the genuineness of the transactions with creditworthiness of those companies. He accordingly, made addition of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act.

104. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) before whom various details as noted by CIT(A) in his order were filed by the Assessee. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee vide para 6.5 of his order deleted the addition made with respect to the loan taken from M/s. New Delhi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. but upheld the action of AO in respect of making the addition of loan taken from M/s. Zarf Trading & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us.

105. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and further submitted that assessee had discharged its initial burden to establish the nature and source of the sum credited in the books of account, more so, when the amount was received and was repaid through banking channels. He submitted that AO without finding any fault with the aforesaid fact on record, merely stated that since the assessee had failed to provide the confirmation, ITR-Acknowledgement, and bank statement of the lender, the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the lender is not substantiated by the assessee and therefore made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. He further submitted that loan that was taken was repaid in the year of borrowing itself and therefore it cannot be considered to be not genuine so as to invoke the provision u/s 68 of the Act. He further contended that even otherwise also no addition can be sustained u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee is not required to maintain the books of accounts and Section 68 of the Act presupposes the maintenance of the books of accounts. He contended that in view of the decisions of the coordinate Benches of this tribunal wherein it has been categorically held that if the loan was received and repaid in the same year, no addition u/s 68 will be called for. For this proposition he placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Navyug Iron Traders vs. DCIT in ITA No.553/Del/2017 dated 24.09.2019 and the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Habitat Infrastructure Ltd. in ITA No. 6155/Del/2015 dated 11.02.2019. He further submitted that addition made by the AO is bad in law and needs to be deleted as the provisions of Section 68 of the Act presupposes the maintenance of books of accounts wherein the disputed sum should have been found credited. He submitted that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year, assessee was not maintaining “books of account” and was neither required to maintain any “books of account” as per the provisions of Section 44AA of the Act. He therefore submitted that certain class of assessees who compute their income under the head “Profits and Gains of business or profession” u/s 44AD to 44BBB of the Act are required to maintain books of accounts only when they claim profit at a lower than the prescribed rates in the respective section. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Anand Ram Raitani vs. CIT 223 ITR 544 (Guwahati HC) and the decision of various Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Dinesh Kumar Verma vs. ITO in ITA No.1183/Mum/2019 and Kokkarne Prabhakara vs. ITO in ITA No.1239/Bang/2019. He therefore, submitted that addition made by the AO and upheld by CIT(A) be deleted.

106. Learned DR on the other hand took us through the findings of AO and CIT(A) and submitted that assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of accounts nor filed any other details to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders and therefore under these facts and circumstances the authorities below were fully justified in making the addition and sustaining the same.

107. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition u/s 68 of the Act. The AO has made addition by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. As per Section 68 of the Act, the AO is authorized to make addition in the event any sum is found credited in the books of assessee maintained for any previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory. The sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In the case in hand the contention of the assessee is that she has not been maintaining “books of accounts”, and as per the provisions of law she is not required to maintain books of accounts in terms of Section 44AA of the Act. We are unable to accept this contention of the assessee that the AO would have no power to examine the issue of unsecured loan if the assessee is not required to maintain the books of accounts statutorily due to falling in a special class of assessee. Thus this argument of the Ld. AR is devoid of any merits. However, regarding unsecured loans received from M/s. Zarf Trading & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. the Assessee had provided income tax return acknowledgement, bank statements of those parties. The AO without carrying out requisite enquiry proceeded purely on the basis of surmise and therefore, such approach of the assessing authority is not in accordance with the settled position of law. Admittedly in the present case no addition has been made in the case of the lender. Hence, it can be safely inferred that no addition has been made in the hand of the lender meaning thereby the source of such amount has been duly accepted in the hand of lender since no addition has been made by AO. Therefore, in our considered view source is explained. Now AO cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. There is no finding regarding the unsecured loan being routed through dubious route by the assessee to bring her own unexplained money through the lenders. In the absence of specific finding by the AO supported by relevant evidence that the assessee has adopted the route of the unsecured lenders for bringing her own money, no addition could be made. Furthermore, the Revenue has not rebutted the fact that the loan in question was repaid during the year of its receipt. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ITO Vs. Habitat Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) held that there was no need to interfere with the findings of CIT(A) who deleted the addition on the basis that loan which was obtained and repaid by the assessee subsequently. We therefore respectfully following the binding precedents cited by the Ld. AR noted hereinabove direct the AO to delete the addition. Thus the ground of the assessee is allowed.

108. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Now we take assessee’s appeals in the case of Poonam Yadav in ITA Nos. 1448 & 1120/Del/2021 for A.Ys. 2016-17 & 201718 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021):

109. The grounds raised in ITA No.1448/Del/2021 reads as under:

1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 passed by the AO under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.8,42,188/-, out of total addition of Rs.9,48,188/-, and not deleting the aforesaid addition, which was made by the AO under section 69 of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property on the basis of higher fair market value thereof determined by the DVO.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A. since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition of alleged unexplained investment on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.

Without Prejudice

7. Further without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not rejecting the report of DVO which suffered from several inaccuracies qua the method of valuation followed, like adoption of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, discounting of 20% on account of personal supervision, etc.

8. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

110. Ground Nos.1, 3 & 4 are against the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153A and approval granted u/s 153D of the Act.

111. It is submitted on behalf of the Learned Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021(supra) and therefore they have same arguments to make.

112. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view against the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and dismissed the grounds related to the framing of assessment u/s 153A of the Act and approval u/s 153D. Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore for the same reasoning the Ground Nos. 1, 3 & 4 are dismissed and our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds. Thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed.

113. Rest of the grounds in these appeals are against the addition made on account of unexplained investments in the construction of the property at Noida.

114. It is submitted on behalf of the Learned Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021(supra) and therefore they have same arguments to make.

115. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view in favour of the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore for the same reasoning the other grounds related to the valuation and investment of the property at Noida are allowed and our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds. Thus the grounds of assessee are allowed.

116. In the result, the grounds in the appeal in ITA No.1448/Del/2021 of the assessee are partly allowed.

117. The grounds raised in ITA No.1120/Del/2021 reads as under:

1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 passed by the assessing officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,20,916, out of total addition of Rs.68,13,945/-, and not deleting the aforesaid entire addition, which was made by the assessing officer under section 69 of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property on the basis of higher fair market value thereof determined by the DVO.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition of alleged unexplained investment on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.

5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under’ section 69 on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT(Inv.), on the ground that the assessing officer was not empowered to refer the aforesaid report, without an independent reference to DVO under section 142A of the Act.

5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the assessing officer was competent to refer the report of DVO submitted pursuant to reference made by DDIT(Inv.) under section 132(9D) of the Act since the same DVO – (i) was competent to issue valuation report under section 142A, (ii) as also issue report using the same method of valuation.

Without Prejudice

7. Further without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not rejecting the report of DVO which suffered from several inaccuracies qua the method of valuation followed, like adoption of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, discounting of 20% on account of personal supervision, etc.

7.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the DVO had adopted the appropriate method to determine the fair market value of the property and adopting CPWD rates for property situated in Noida, which was near to Delhi whereas PWD rates was not appropriate which was meant for entire state of UP.

118. Ground Nos. 1, 3 & 4 are against the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153A and approval granted u/s 153D of the Act.

119. It is submitted on behalf of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021(supra) and therefore, they have same arguments to make.

120. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view against the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and dismissed the grounds related to the framing of assessment u/s 153A of the Act and approval u/s 153D. Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore for the same reasoning the Ground Nos.1, 3 & 4 are dismissed and our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds. Thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed.

121. Rest of the grounds in these appeals are against the addition made on account of unexplained investments in the construction of the property at Noida.

122. It is submitted on behalf of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021(supra) and therefore they have same arguments to make.

123. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view in favour of the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore for the same reasoning the other grounds related to the valuation and investment of the property at Noida are allowed and our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds. Thus the grounds of assessee are allowed.

124. In the result, the grounds in the appeal in ITA No.1120/Del/2021 of the assessee are partly allowed.

Now we take up ITA No.1121/Del/2021 in the case of Poonam Yadav for A.Y. 2018-19 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021):

125. Assessee has raised the following grounds:

1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated passed by the AO under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,46,20,962/- made by the AO under section 69 of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, on the basis of some documents found during the course of independent search at premises of third party, i.e., Shri B.B. Goel, containing name of, inter alia, appellant with amount invested in the aforesaid property.

3.1 That the C1 T(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that, on reading the aforesaid seized documents it follows that cash was paid by the appellant towards purchase of impugned property.

3.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid document was a dumb document and the inferences drawn by the AO / CIT (A) were based on surmises and conjectures; and the presumptions under section 132 (4A) and 292C could not have been drawn against the appellant since the document was not found from the premises of the appellant.

3.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made by the AO, without bringing on record any adverse statement or providing any opportunity to the appellant to cross examine Mr. B.B. Goel, from whose premises aforesaid document was found, to substantiate the contents of such documents, before drawing adverse inference / conclusion against the appellant on assumptions and presumptions.

3.4 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the aforesaid addition was beyond the scope of the provisions of section 69 of the Act.

3.5 Further, without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in assuming the alleged excess investment during the year under consideration, whereas if the assumption drawn by the AO / CIT(A) was to accepted, then the aforesaid excess investment would have been made in the preceding year and consequently impugned addition was not warranted in the year under consideration.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.94,38,552/- made under section 69A alleging unexplained investment in jewellery and bullion, belonging to the appellant, which was found during the course of independent search at the premises of Shri Rajeshwar Yadav, on the ground that the appellant failed to explain sources of such investments, by rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant, on surmises and conjectures.

5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made under section 68 deeming the unsecured loan of that amount received from Shri Shantanoo Goyal as unexplained cash credit.

1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the aforesaid addition without appreciating that the appellant had discharged preliminary onus placed upon it and the AO had failed to discharge the burden of conducting necessary enquiries before deeming the loan received through proper channels as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act.

1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the AO had erred in applying section 68, since the same was not applicable on appellant, who was not maintaining books of account.

126. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are against challenging the validity of jurisdiction thereby framing the assessment u/s 153A and approval u/s 153D of the Act.

127. It is submitted on behalf of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 (supra) and therefore, they have same arguments to make.

128. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view against the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and dismissed the grounds related to the framing of assessment u/s 153A of the Act and approval u/s 153D. Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore for the same reasoning the Ground Nos. 1, & 2 are dismissed and our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds. Thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed.

129. Ground Nos. 3 to 3.5 are with respect to the addition of Rs.3,46,20,962/- u/s 69 of the Act.

130. Learned AR submitted that issue raised in this ground is identical to the ground raised in the case of Shashi Yadav in ITA No.1123/Del/2021. On these issues, the Learned AR relied upon the submissions made therein. He submitted that impugned addition deserves to be deleted. On the other hand Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

131. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the facts in these grounds are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Sashi Yadav in ITA No.1123/Del/2021 (supra). We have elaborately examined the issues therein and by following the binding precedents decided the issues in favour of the assessee. For the same reasoning and sake of consistency, we decide these issues also in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Our findings in ITA No.1123/Del/2021 on identical ground shall apply mutatis mutandis and the AO is therefore directed to delete the addition. Thus these grounds of the Assessee’s appeal are allowed.

132. Ground No.4 is against addition of Rs.94,38,552/- made u/s 69A of the Act with respect to unexplained investment in jewellery and bullion.

133. AO has noted that during the course of search operation u/s 132 of the Act at the residential premises of Shri Dinesh Yadav (Uncle of the assessee) at Faridabad, total 2916.158 Gms Jewellery and bullion (2838.048 gold jewellery and bullion 78.11 diamond Stone] aggregating to Rs.96,76,472/- was found. Shri Dinesh Yadav in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has stated that out of 2916.158 gms of jewellery and bullion found at the residential premises, jewellery approximately of 80 gms valued at Rs.2,37,920/- belongs to him and his wife and all the remaining jewellery belongs to his brother in law, Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav (father in law of the assessee). AO has noted at para 5.2 of his order that Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav in his statement recorded u/s 131(A), during the course of search operation, had stated that the aforesaid jewellery found at the premises of Shri Dinesh Yadav does not belong to him. During the course of post search proceedings, in the statement recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act, Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav was again asked to explain about the jewellery found at the premises of Dinesh Yadav wherein he reiterated that the aforesaid jewellery does not belong to him. He further stated that relations of his and his family members are not well with his in-laws since last eight years. Further, it is recorded by the AO that during the course of post search proceedings, statement of Shri Manish Yadav (husband of the assessee) was recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act and he was asked to explain about the jewellery found in the residential premises of Shri Dinesh Yadav. In response thereto he stated that prior to the search operation, there was some function in his family and his wife Poonam Yadav and his sister Ms. Shweta Singh were wearing some jewellery which was left at the residential house of Shri Dinesh Yadav due to security reasons and hence the jewellery found and seized at the residential premises of Shri Dinesh Yadav belonged to his wife and sister and therefore considering the statement made by the husband of the assessee and Shri Dinesh Yadav, AO held that the out of the total jewellery of 2916.158 gms found at the residential premises of Dinesh Yadav, 80 gms of jewellery valuing Rs.2,37,920/-belonged to Shri Dinesh Yadav and his family members and the remaining jewellery valued at Rs.94,38,552/- belonged to Smt. Poonam Yadav. It is further recorded by the AO that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to explain the source of acquisition of jewellery along with supporting evidences and its source of investment. Assessee inter alia submitted that some of the jewellery was received by her as gift from Late Smt. Sonwati (grandmother in law) and some jewellery belonged to Shri Gajendra Singh (uncle) and his family. Assessee also filed a gift deed in support of gift of jewellery in question received from Late Smt. Sonwati along with some purchase bills of Shree Jewellers. AO has recorded that on perusal of the site of Commercial Tax state of UP, that no firm having TIN No.09525801651 (being the TIN number reflected in the bills of Shree Jewellers) was registered in that name but the TIN number was registered in the name of one Shri Subhash Chand Jain. AO noted that assessee had not filed any confirmation regarding purchase of jewellery by Late Smt. Sonwati. He also noted that assessee has also stated that some jewellery belonged to Shri Gajendra Singh and his family but no bills or any cogent documentary evidences was produced to substantiate the claim. AO therefore concluded that the assessee has failed to explain source of investment of the jewellery and accordingly made addition of Rs.94,38,552/- u/s 69 of the Act.

134. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us.

135. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before AO and CIT(A) and further submitted that out of the total jewellery, 705.04 gms of jewellery belonged to Mr. Dinesh Yadav’s family, which was within the entitlement of 950 gms as per CBDT Circular No.1916 for his family which consisted of his wife, a girl child and a boy. He thereafter submitted that 535.28 gms of jewellery belonged to Mrs. Arshi Manoj, who was the real sister of Mr. Dinesh Yadav’s wife, and she had kept her jewellery at the time of marriage at Mr. Dinesh Yadav premises which was duly confirmed by Mrs. Arshi Manoj in her affidavit filed during the assessment proceedings. He thereafter submitted that out of the total jewellery, 160.358 gms of the jewellery belonged to Ms. Shweta Yadav, sister of Mr. Manish Yadav, who had also kept the same at Mr. Dinesh Yadav’s premises along with jewellery of Mr. Manish Yadav and his family in a separate pouch and the pouch had the name of Shweta on it. The remaining 1808.82 gms of jewellery was stated to be belonging to Shri Manish Yadav and his family including Mrs. Poonam Yadav. He further filed a chart explaining the ownership of jewellery as under:

Name of Family	Gms.	Assessee’s Stand
Mr. Dinesh Yadav and Family	705.04 (Gold Jewellery) + 78.11 Gms – Diamond Stone Total – 783.15 Gms	Mr. Dinesh Yadav during his assessment proceedings explained his family’s entitlement at 950 Grams (Self 100, Wife – 500, Daughter 250, Son 100). It was claimed to be covered by entitlement as envisaged in relevant circular of CBDT.
	Less : Relief allowed by AO of 451.45 Gms [80 Gms + 371.450 Gms]
	Total : 331.70 Gms
Mrs. Arshi Manoj (Sister in law of Mr. Dinesh Yadav)	535.28 Gms	Arshi Yadav submitted an affidavit interalia explaining her family’s entitlement at 1100 gms (Husband – 100, Wife – 500, Two daughters – 500). It was claimed to be covered by entitlement as envisaged in relevant CBDT Circular.
		While in search at her premises 31Gms and 535.28 Gms found from Mr. Dinesh’s premises stand explained reasonable, same should be accepted.
Mrs. Shweta Yadav (Sister of Mr. Manish Yadav)	160.358 Gms	Found with her name on pouch at search, coupled with admission of Manish Yadav, so submitted that explanation is reasonable.
Mr. Gajendra Singh Yadav & FamilyLate Smt. Sonvati (Grandmother of Mr. Manish Yadav)	1500 Gms. 3755.8 Gms	Affidavit of Mr. Gajendra Singh Yadav Family Entitlement 1700 Gms while found only 92.50 Gms so 1500 gms was explained reasonable in hand of Gajendra and family Purchase bill and gift deed
Total	6283.138 Gms

136. He therefore, submitted that the assessee had duly explained the ownership of jewellery with supporting evidences and therefore the additions made by the AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified and hence deserves to be deleted. He more particularly submitted that had the authorities below considered the bills and other evidences furnished by the assessee and applied the CBDT directions as embodied in the CBDT Circular, there would have been no reason to make any addition.

137. On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the submissions made by Ld. AR and strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. He further contended that the husband of the assessee owned up entire jewellery found at the premises of Shri Dinesh Yadav. It is therefore not a case where the jewellery found at third party’s residence was attributed to the assessee. However in the rejoinder, Ld. AR opposed the contentions of the Ld. DR. He contended that it is apparent from record that the authorities were not fair in rejecting the evidences furnished by the assessee merely on the basis of conjectures.

138. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the addition made on account of jewellery found at the premises of third party during the search. The undisputed fact remains that the assessee had furnished certain evidences regarding the source of acquisition of jewellery but the same was not accepted by the Revenue.

139. The explanation of the assessee regarding source and ownership of the jewellery attributed to the assessee by the Revenue can be divided into four parts. Firstly, the AO has failed to give benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11^th May 1994 belonging to Shri Dinesh Yadav and his family members. Secondly, the AO did not consider the gift deed evidencing the fact that the jewellery was received as a gift from Grandmother in law, Smt Sonwati. Thirdly, the AO erroneously rejected the evidence in the form of bills on the basis that TIN number belonged to Shri Subhash Chand Jain without taking into consideration the fact that Shri Subhash Chand Jain being the proprietor of firm, Shree Jewellers, therefore TIN was registered in his personal name and fourthly, the explanation offered regarding the jewellery of other persons who had duly affirmed the ownership by filing affidavit.

140. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that had the AO given the benefit of CBDT instructions and considered the evidences in the form of gift deed, affidavit, bills and vouchers the impugned addition would have reduced substantially. We are therefore of the considered view that not granting the benefit of CBDT Instructions No. 1916 (supra), and in the light of binding precedents has resulted into gross injustice to the assessee. We therefore, direct the AO to grant benefit of CBDT instructions to Shri Dinesh Yadav and his family members. Admittedly, it is not the say of the Revenue that the CBDT instructions are not applicable in the present facts and attribute the gold jewellery weighing 950 gms to the family of Shri Dinesh Yadav. It is also brought to our notice that some of the jewellery related to Mrs. Arshi Manoj who is stated to be sister-in-law of Shri Dinesh Yadav, and had given an affidavit showing her entitlement based on CBDT instructions at 1100 gms. The AO without rebutting the contents of the affidavit merely made addition without conducting adequate inquiry attributed the entire jewellery to the assessee. Therefore, in terms of CBDT instructions, 535.28 gms of jewellery, in the absence of any contrary material, is stood explained. Further, the contention that out of the total jewellery found at the premises of Shri Dinesh Yadav, jewellery weighing 160.358 gms belonged to Mrs. Shweta Yadav, who is stated to be the sister of Mr. Manish Yadav. The AO could not controvert the fact that at the time of search the jewellery in question was found in a separate pouch with the name of Mrs. Shweta Yadav. Therefore, looking to the fact that Shri Manish Yadav admitted the fact that the jewellery belonged to his sister, Mrs. Shweta Yadav and coupled with the fact that it is a normal practice in Indian household that ladies keep their jewellery jointly, the AO ought to have not attributed the aforesaid jewellery solely in the hands of the Assessee. We hold accordingly, and direct the AO to delete the addition to that extent.

141. Out of the remaining jewellery, we are of the considered view that the AO should have considered the gift deed and other evidences furnished by the assessee explaining the ownership of the jewellery found in the possession of Shri Dinesh Yadav. Therefore taking a holistic view, jewellery to the extent of 150 gms be treated as not explained and rest of the jewellery stood explained. We therefore, direct the AO to restrict the addition in this respect to the extent 150 gms in the hand of the assessee. Thus this ground of the assessee is partly allowed.

142. Ground No.5 is with respect to addition of Rs.20,00,000/-made u/s 68 of the Act on account of deeming the unsecured loan of that amount received from Shri Shantanoo Goyal as unexplained cash credit.

143. With regard to the loan of Rs.20,00,000/- received by the assessee from Shri Shantanoo Goyal, supporting evidences were filed in the form of PAN Card of the lender, confirmation of the lender, bank statement of the lender and bank statement of the assessee which reflected the amounts received from the lender. However, the AO wrongly stated that no amount to the extent of the loan has been debited in the bank statement of Shri Shantanoo Goyal. It is noteworthy that AO had made addition of Rs.52,50,000/- out of which Rs.32,50,000/-, being loan received from Shri Pravin and Smt. Mamta Kapoor was deleted by the Learned CIT(A). However, the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was sustained by the CIT(A) as assessee had failed to furnish ITR and other details to verify the credit.

144. In this regard the submissions of the Ld AR is that the identity of the lender is established by the PAN Card of the lender, the genuineness of the transactions was also fully established by the fact that the transaction was duly recorded and confirmed in the accounts of the lenders and was received through banking channels. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd., [2010] 5 Taxmann.com 60 (Delhi). He further submitted that Learned CIT(A) without appreciating the fact that assessee has discharged its primary onus to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender, had simply held that since the assessee failed to furnish the ITR, the creditworthiness of the creditor stands unverified and therefore upheld the addition wrongly. He also placed reliance on the following decisions:

CIT vs. Ganeshwari Metals Pvt. Ltd. 2013-TIOL-96-HC-DEL-IT
CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., 2012-TIOL-236-HC-DEL-IT, SLP filed in this case by the Department has been dismissed by the Hon’ble SC vide order dated 27.09.2012 in CC15640/2012.
ITO vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd.; 2015-TIOL-1082-ITAT-DEL
Root Invest Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO; 2015-TIOL-238-ITAT-DEL
ITO vs. Reliance Marketing Pvt. Ltd.; 2015-TIOL-319-ITAT-DEL
ACIT vs. Divine (India) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; 2015-TIOL-106-ITAT-DEL

145. Ld.AR further contented that the provision of Section 68 of the Act presupposes the maintenance of books of accounts wherein the disputed sum should have been found credited to make an addition under the said section. He submitted that during the relevant year, assessee was not required to maintain books of account u/s 44AA of the Act. The provision relating to maintain the books of account are outlined u/s 44AA of the Act for the respective class of the assessee’s carrying on business or profession. In view of the submissions made it was prayed that the addition be deleted.

146. Per contra, Learned CIT-DR opposed the submissions made by Ld AR and submitted that one of the very crucial requirement was missing as the assessee had failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders. He therefore submitted that Learned CIT(A) has rightly sustained the addition.

147. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition u/s 68 of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that the AO had grossly erred in returning the finding that the amount was not recorded in the accounts of the lender as there was no debit entry in the bank statement of the lender. The Ld. AR has pointed out from the bank statement of the lender that the amount was duly reflected and same was confirmed by the lender. However, Ld. CIT(A) taking a different stand that the assessee failed to prove credit worthiness of the lender upheld the addition. However, the AO had made addition on the basis that there was no debit entry in the bank statement of the lender. However, looking into the material placed on record in support of the claim regarding loan of Rs. 20 lakh received from Shri Shantnoo Goyal, the amount is duly reflected. Therefore, the suspicion of AO is baseless. We, therefore, looking to the material placed on record are of considered view that the AO erroneously made addition and hence same is hereby deleted. Thus the ground of the assessee is allowed.

148. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Now we take ITA No.1124/Del/2021 in the case of Manish Yadav for A.Y. 2018-19 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021):

149. Assessee has raised the following grounds:

1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the AO under section 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 143(3)/153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,20,07,849/- made by the AO under section 69 of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, on the basis of some documents found during the course of independent search at premises of third party, i.e., Shri B.B. Goel, containing name of, inter alia, appellant with amount invested in the aforesaid property.

3.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that, on reading the aforesaid seized documents it follows that cash was paid by the appellant towards purchase of impugned property.

3.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid document was a dumb document and the inferences drawn by the AO / C1T (A) were based on surmises and conjectures; and the presumptions under section 132 (4A) and 292C could not have been drawn against the appellant since the document was not found from the premises of the appellant.

3.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made by the AO, without bringing on record any adverse statement or providing any opportunity to the appellant to cross examine Mr. B.B. Goel, from whose premises aforesaid document was found, to substantiate the contents of such documents, before drawing adverse inference / conclusion against the appellant on assumptions and presumptions.

3.4 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the aforesaid addition was beyond the scope of the provisions of section 69 of the Act.

3.5 Further, without prejudice, that the C1T(A) erred on facts and in law in assuming the alleged excess investment during the year under consideration, whereas if the assumption drawn by the AO / CIT(A) was to accepted, then the aforesaid excess investment would have been made in the preceding year and consequently impugned addition was not warranted in the year under consideration.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.84,01,956/- and Rs.4,56,000/- made the AO under section 69A alleging unexplained investment in gold / diamond / silver jewellery found from the residential premises of the appellant at the time of search, by rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant regarding ownership and source of such investment, on surmises and conjectures.

Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

150. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are against challenging the validity of jurisdiction thereby framing the assessment u/s 153A and approval u/s 153D of the Act.

151. It is submitted on behalf of the Learned Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021(supra) and therefore they have same arguments to make.

152. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view against the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and dismissed the grounds related to the framing of assessment u/s 153A of the Act and approval u/s 153D. Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore for the same reasoning the Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are dismissed and our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds. Thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed.

153. With regard to Ground Nos. 3 to 3.5, the Learned Authorized Representative of the assessee adopted the same arguments as were in the case of Smt Shashi Yadav (ITA No.1123/Del/2021) wherein, similar grounds were raised against the impugned addition related to investments made in the property at Noida on the basis of the notings in the diary of Shri B. B. Goel. He submitted that the arguments made therein are also adopted herein for the sake of brevity.

154. Learned DR did not object to the submissions of the Learned AR and further stated that his arguments made in ITA No.1123/Del/2021 may also be taken as arguments made in the present appeal.

155. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view in favour of the assessee following various case laws cited and relied by the parties in the case of Smt. Shashi Yadav (supra). The Revenue has not pointed out any distinguishing feature in the facts and circumstances of the present case and that of Smt. Shashi Yadav. Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Smt. Sashi Yadav (supra) therefore for the same reasoning the Ground Nos. 3 to 3.5 of assessee’s appeal are allowed and our finding in ITA No.1123/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds. Thus the grounds of assessee are allowed.

156. Ground No.4 is with respect to the additions of Rs.84,01,956/- and Rs.4,56,000/- u/s 69A of the Act alleging unexplained investment in gold/diamond/silver jewellery found from the residential premises of the assessee.

157. During the course of search operation conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the residential premises and in the locker of the assessee, gold and diamond jewellery was found which are tabulated by AO at para 5 of the assessment order. The aggregate value of jewellery found was Rs. 1,30,26,060/-. The assessee was asked to explain the source of acquisition of the jewellery along with the supporting documents and evidences. Assessee inter alia made the submissions about the source and ownership of the jewellery. The submissions of the assessee were not found acceptable to AO. AO thereafter, following the CBDT instructions gave credit of the jewellery with respect to the family members of the assessee amounting to Rs.46,24,102/- and remaining jewellery and Bullions 2379.662 gms valued at Rs.84,01,956/-was added as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act.

158. During the course of search, 11500 gms of silver jewellery amounting to Rs.4,56,000/- was also found. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to explain the source of investment of the jewellery to which assessee made the submissions. The submissions of the assessee were not found acceptable to AO. AO held that in the absence of any explanation or documentary evidences, the investment of Rs.4,56,000/- in the jewellery to be unexplained and made its additions u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us.

159. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and further submitted that addition on account of unexplained jewellery of Rs.84,01,956/- weighing 2379.6 gms added in the hands of the assessee stands explained as in respect of the identical issue of addition on account of unexplained jewellery which was subject matter in the case Poonam Yadav in ITA No.1121/Del/2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 wherein the whole jewellery has been explained in the hands of the Poonam Yadav and the Learned Counsel for assessee submitted that for the same reasoning and similar submissions the addition of Rs.84,01,956/- in respect of the jewellery weighing 2379.6 gms added in the hands of the assessee stands explained and therefore the addition be deleted.

160. Further, in respect of addition of Rs. 4,56,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, it is contended that silver jewellery that was found was accumulated over a period of time and it is very nominal considering the status of the family of the assessee. He submitted that in view of the CBDT Instruction No.1916, the same be allowed and addition be deleted.

161. Learned CIT-DR on the other hand supported the orders of authorities below. He submitted that the AO has given benefit of CBDT instructions to the assessee and therefore the value of the remaining unexplained jewellery is rightly added to the income of the assessee.

162. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The contention of the assessee before the AO was that out of the total jewellery, 1500 gms was belonging to Shri Gajendra Singh and his family. In support of this contention the assessee had filed the affidavit of Shri Gajendra Singh dated 19.11.2019 owning the jewellery. However, the AO without making further inquiries did not accept the explanation of the assessee. The AO ought to have confronted Shri Gajendra Singh and ought to have made inquiries on that aspect. The statement made by way of affidavit should not have been brushed aside by the AO if he found that the contents were not true and correct, he could have proceeded against Shri Gajendra Singh for making false affidavit. Another explanation before the AO was that the jewellery that was found in locker and from the residential premises also included the jewellery received by his wife from his grandmother, Smt Sonwati. The AO treated this explanation as afterthought without bringing any material rebutting such explanations. Therefore looking to the totality of the facts, had the AO given setoff, the jewellery belonging to Shri Gajendra Singh and his family weighing 1500 gms and jewellery belonging to the wife of the assessee, then in that event the addition would have reduced drastically. In the case of Poonam Yadav in ITA No.1121/Del/2021 (supra) we have directed the AO to give set off of the jewellery received as a gift from grandmother in law of Smt. Poonam Yadav and for the same reasoning the AO would allow the setoff of the jewellery belonging to Gajendra Singh and his family and the jewellery belonging to the wife of the assessee that was received as gift from grandmother law and was part of the jewellery that was found at the residential premises of the assessee and his locker. Looking to the facts and material placed before us, we are of the considered view that the action of AO is not justified for not giving set off of jewellery belonging to other persons and duly explained by the assessee. We, therefore, taking a holistic view restrict the addition to the extent of 300 gms jewellery in the hands of assessee. Rest of the addition is hereby deleted. Thus the ground of the assessee is partly allowed.

163. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Now we take ITA No.1500/Del/2021 (Revenue’s appeal) and ITA No.1126/del/2021 (Assessee’s appeal) in the case of Sita Devi Memorial Siksha Sansthan for A.Y. 2017-18 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021):

164. Grounds raised by Revenue in ITA No.1500/Del/2021 are as under:

1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO to the tune of Rs.8.25 Crores. the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact the denominations of lacs has also not been mentioned on the impounded page. The assessee has failed to prove, alongwith documentary evidence, that the figure was in lacs and not in crores. the AO had made independent enquiries to enquire about the genuineness of transactions which was not proved. The assessee did not furnish complete documents to establish genuineness of transactions.

2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO to the tune of Rs. 5.75 crores. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact the denominations of Lacs has also not been mentioned on the impounded page. The assessee has failed to prove, alongwith documentary evidence, that the figure was in lacs and not in crores.

3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO to the tune of Rs.3,39,08,178/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the addition was based on report of DVO and value of construction valuated by it. Further, during the assessment proceedings the assessee had failed to furnish the details of expenses.

4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to allude to the relevant facts & circumstances and misread the facts to arrive at the conclusion.

5. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of appeal at the time, of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

165. Grounds raised by assessee in ITA No.1126/del/2021 are as under:

1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.63,27,948, out of total addition of Rs.4,02,36,126/- and not deleting the aforesaid entire addition, which was made by the assessing officer under section 69B of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property on the basis of higher fair market value thereof determined by the DVO.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 143(3), since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under section 69B of the Act on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT, on the ground that the assessing officer was not empowered to refer the aforesaid report, without an independent reference to DVO under section 1 42A of the Act.

4.1 That the C1 T(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the assessing officer was competent to refer the report of DVO submitted pursuant to reference made by DDIT under section 132(9D) of the Act since the same DVO — (i) was competent to issue valuation report under section 142A, (ii) as also issue report using the same method of valuation.

Without Prejudice

5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the entire addition made by the assessing officer under section 69B on the basis of valuation report of DVO, since the addition not based on any evidence of unexplained expenditures made by the appellant, and was merely made by estimating the fair market value of the expenditures which was outside the scope of provisions of section 69 r. w. s. 1 42A of the Act.

6. Further without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not rejecting the report of DVO which suffered from several inaccuracies qua the method of valuation followed, like adoption of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, discounting of 20% on account of personal supervision, etc.

6.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the DVO had adopted the appropriate method to determine the fair market value of the unexplained expenditure, including adoption of CPWD rates for construction of property situated in Noida.

166. Facts in brief are in this case, assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring Nil income on 02.01.2018. The assessee is an educational society and main objects of the society are to open, run and mange schools and other educational institutions for the spread of general, vocational, technical, moral, spiritual and cultural education wisdom. The assessee society is duly registered u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the name of Sita Devi Memorial and LPS Global School situated at Noida. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment through CASS. The AO while framing the assessment assessed income at Rs.18,02,36,130/- after making addition of Rs.8,25,00,000/- on account of corpus donations. AO noticed that during the year under consideration assessee had received corpus donations of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from Shri Hazarimal Somani Memorial Trust, Rs.2,00,00,000/- from Bhadram Janhit Shalika and Rs.25,00,000/- from Narinaka Sewa Kendra. To verify the genuineness of the donations, notices u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued by the AO on 27.08.2019. AO has noted that no response was received to the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. AO at para 10 of his order noted that in the case of Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, incomplete information was received from its Chartered Accountant and no confirmation from the donor, or audited balance sheet and income & expenditure account was furnished. AO therefore, was of the view that the donation was given by it to the assessee could not be verified in the absence of audited balance sheet. In respect of the other donors, AO noted that no information in respect to confirmation was furnished by the donors. He noted that assessee had also failed to furnish the required details inspite of various opportunities granted by the AO. AO therefore held that assessee had failed to establish identity and creditworthiness of the donors and genuineness of the transactions. He accordingly held that aggregate amount of Rs.8,25,00,000/- received by the assessee to be non-genuine donation and treated it as unexplained cash credit. He was further of the view that the assessee being an educational institutions, the admission in courses were given by the management after taking handsome amount under the guise of donation and the amount so generated was utilized for the construction of college buildings, maintaining the decent life styles of the promoters/trustees etc. He thereafter while relying on the various decisions cited in the order held the amount of Rs.8,25,00,000/- received by the assessee to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and made its additions.

167. When the matter was carried before CIT(A), assessee inter alia submitted that the provision u/s 68 of the Act were not applicable as the corpus donation was duly accounted in the books of the assessee, all the necessary details were filed during the course of assessment proceedings and the amount was applied for charitable purposes. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by assessee has given a finding that the observations of the AO that the admissions to the courses under management quotas were given by taking handsome amounts are on incorrect appreciation of facts on record. After considering the fact that the assessee had received the fee of Rs.1,47,880/-during the year under consideration he was of the view that against the fee received Rs.1,47,880/- nobody will give the donation of Rs.8,25,00,000/-. He has further given a finding that during the year under consideration, assessee trust has not undertaken the educational activities on full swing and observation of the AO is factually incorrect, the donations received by the assessee was not anonymous donations as assessee had maintained the record of donor giving name and complete address. He has further given a finding that the donations received by the assessee was corpus donation which were duly accounted for and given effect in its audited balance sheet under the capital funds, assessee had applied the corpus donations towards charitable purposes. He further noted that assessee had discharged its burden by filing bank statements, ITR and financial statements and the notices issued u/s 133(6) were not returned back. He therefore deleted the addition of Rs.8,25,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal.

168. Learned DR took us through the findings of AO and supported his order. He further submitted that since corpus donations is permanent in nature it should be confirmed by the donor and if the AO has not done full enquiry, Learned CIT(A) ought to have made the necessary enquiries before deciding the issue. He thus supported the order of AO and submitted that CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by AO.

169. Learned AR on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and further submitted that assessee has discharged its initial onus by proving the identity and the creditworthiness of the donors and the additions made by the AO was only based on surmise and not based on the facts. He thus supported the order of CIT(A).

170. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has given finding of fact by observing as under:

“7.5 I have carefully examined the submission filed by the appellant and found force in it. Further, contention of the appellant is correct that donation received by appellant trust was corpus donation, received through banking channel, and all ingredients of section 68 have been satisfied during the course of assessment proceedings. Donations received were not the anonymous donation. Appellant has also submitted that AO’s observations in the assessment order is devoid of any merit and no addition can be made on the basis of imagination, surmises and conjectures. In the year under consideration appellant has shown total receipt of Rs.40,08,116/- which includes bank interest of Rs.38,52,541/-meaning thereby the fee of Rs.1,47,880/- has only been received and which shows that school was in the initial stage and few admissions were taken. The story of AO that it is general perception that the admissions in these courses under management quotas are given by taking handsome amounts in lacs under the guise of donation or otherwise is devoid of any merit and on incorrect appreciation of facts on record. Against the fee of Rs. 1,47,880/- nobody will give the donation of Rs. 8,25,00,000/-.

7.6 The contention of the appellant is correct and it is found that AO has not verified audited balance sheet of the appellant already placed on record. In the year under appeal appellant trust has not undertaken the educational activities on full swing and observation of the AO is factually incorrect. Donations Received by appellant are not anonymous donations because appellant trust has maintained the record of donor giving name and complete address. Donations received by appellant trust were corpus donations and duly accounted for in the audited balance sheet under the head capital funds. Appellant trust has applied for the corpus donation towards the charitable purposes. Appellant has discharged its onus by filing letters of the donors, bank statements, ITR and financial statements however addition u/s 68 made by AO is merely on the basis that the notices issued u/s 133(6) were not responded by the donors, however at the same time, it is a fact that such notices also did not return back and thus the identity of the donors was well proved due to this. Furthermore, the AO could not conduct further field verifications, based on the evidences of bank statements and creditworthiness.

7.7 Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.8,25,00,000/- made by AO u/s 68 is hereby deleted. Accordingly Ground No 3 is allowed to the appellant.”

171. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Moreover, the AO has not brought any evidence on record suggesting that the Assessee routed its own money through donors. Admittedly, Revenue has not brought any material suggesting that any action has been taken and or contemplated against the donors under the Act. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed.

172. Ground No.2 is with respect to deletion of addition made by the AO of Rs.5.75 crores.

173. AO has observed that a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of Sita Devi Memorial Shiksha Sansthan on 10.11.2017 and certain documents were found and impounded. A ledger account of M/s. Metamorphosis Constructions relating to F.Y. 2016-17 were found wherein it reflected an amount of Rs.12,72,00,000/- was written to be paid to M/s Metamorphosis Construction and out of which Rs.5,75,00,000/- was written in cash. Assessee was asked to explain the transactions recorded therein along with necessary supporting evidences. AO noted that assessee had failed to furnish documentary evidences to support the transactions. He therefore considered Rs.5,75,00,000/- treating the same to have been made by the assessee in cash to M/s. Metamorphosis Construction as unexplained expenditure and made its addition u/s 69C of the Act.

174. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who after examining the records had stated that the figure is actually in lakh and not in crores and hence the said amount was in fact Rs.5,75,000/-. CIT(A) further observed that the amount of Rs.5,75,000/- was duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. He therefore deleted the addition of Rs.5,75,00,000/-. Aggrieved against the order of CIT(A),Revenue filed appeal before us.

175. Before us, Learned DR took us to the order of AO and supported his order.

176. Learned AR on the other hand reiterated the submissions made by lower authorities and submitted that the CIT(A) after considering the factual material evidences and has rightly deleted the addition and therefore, no interference to his order is called for under the undisputed facts.

177. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding which reads as under:

“8.3 The AO has made addition of Rs. 5,75,00,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure by invoking provisions of section 69C of IT Act. The sole basis of addition is document found during the course of survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of the appellant trust. As per assessment order, page number 48 of annexure- LP-1, shows a figure of Rs. 12,72,00,000/- is written to be paid to M/s Metamorphosis Construction and out of which Rs.5,75,00,000/- is written to be paid in cash by the appellant. As per assessment order notice u/s 142(1) dated 01.10.2019 was issued to appellant to explain the document as per books of accounts of the appellant. Finally, AO has made the addition of Rs.5,75,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure incurred by the appellant by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. The copy of the said page as referred by the Appellant is produced as above. The Appellant submitted that the upper typed portion of the said page contains the details of construction expenses paid to Metamorphosis Construction (“Contractor”), which is duly recorded in the books of the accounts of the Appellant. The said fact has not been disputed by the AO. Further, it is noticed that there are some scribbling on the bottom part of the page wherein a figure of cheque 6.47 and cash of Rs. 5.75 is mentioned. On the right side of said figure of Cheque 6.47, a figure of 0.50 is mentioned that makes the cheque figure to 6.97. The AO considered the said figure of cash of Rs. 5.75 as to depict 5.75 crore and made an addition of Rs. 5.75 crores in the hands of the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that such rough handwritten scribbling cannot be treated as part of books of account and is dumb document for the Appellant. For this the Appellant relied on the various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court. The Appellant further submitted that no show cause notice or other details were asked by the AO under notice u/s 142(1) to respond in this regard. In this regard, I perused the para 13 of the Assessment Order wherein the details of such addition made by the AO are mentioned, wherein no notice of any nature was found to be mentioned.

8.4 The Appellant further submitted that the amount of Rs. 6.97 as mentioned on the said page to be made by cheque is duly recorded in the books of account. As a proof of the same, the Appellant submitted the copy of payment voucher wherein a payment of Rs. 6.86 lakh has been shown to have been paid to the said contractor vide Cheque no 086822 of Corporation Bank issued by the Appellant. Therefore Appellant succeeded in proving that the said handwritten scribbling referred by the AO is actually figure in lakhs and not in crores. The Appeiiant further submitted that the cash portion of Rs. 5.75 is actually 5.75 lac and is duly recorded in the books of account of the Appellant. To prove the same, the Appellant filed the copy of the Imprest ledger wherein a total expenditure of Rs. 5.75 lac has been shown to be incurred in cash for meeting the petty construction expenses and other expenses of the Appellant. In this regard it is observed that neither the authorized officer of survey nor the assessing authority could take statement of the concerned person who was in possession of this impounded material, i.e. the page no. 48 of annexure LP-1, which has been retied by the AO. And the AO also failed to refer any invoice or any other paper or document found during the course of survey which can prove that such a substantial amount of Rs. 5.75 Crore was incurred in cash outside the books of accounts.

8.5 Considering the facts of the case, it is evident that the said figure is actually in lakh and not in crores and further that the said amount of Rs. 5.75 lakhs is duly recorded in the books of account of the Appellant.. Therefore, the said addition of Rs. 5,75,00,000 made by the AO is hereby deleted and the relief is allowed to the appellant.”

178. The above finding on fact wherein the Learned CIT(A) has specifically stated that the figure taken by the AO of Rs.5,75,00,000/- was incorrect and the correct figure was Rs.5,75,000/- which was duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. The Revenue has not placed any evidence rebutting the above mentioned finding of Learned CIT(A) by placing any contrary material on record. Under these circumstances and in the absence of any adverse material we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

179. Ground No.3 is with respect to deleting the addition of Rs.3,39,08,178/-.

180. During the year under consideration, AO noted that assessee has disclosed the investment of Rs.9,06,00,243/- in the construction on the Plot bearing No.196/2B, Sector – 51, Noida on which the school namely LPS Global School was running. He noted that as per valuation report received from DVO, Delhi, the total construction value that was determined by him at Rs.13,08,36,369/- meaning thereby that there was difference of Rs.4,02,36,126/-. Assessee was asked to explain the difference of the aforesaid amount with necessary documentary evidences. Before AO, Assessee inter alia stated that the DVO has made estimation of fair market value of the property but the value declared by the assessee was actual cost incurred. It was further submitted that DVO had stated that the property was under construction but on the contrary the valuation was done by DVO by assuming the construction as completed. The submissions of the assessee were not found acceptable to AO. AO concluded the differential value between the valuation made by DVO and that declared by the assessee amounting to Rs.4,02,36,123/- as unexplained investment and made its addition u/s 69B of the Act.

181. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee CIT(A) at para 9.8 of the order has noted that as per the Valuation Report the construction of the property was valued at Rs.16,97,37,700/-, and then the same was bifurcated at Rs.3,89,01,331/- for F.Y. 2015-16 & Rs.13,08,36,369/- for F.Y. 2016-17. CIT(A) noted that the actual expenses incurred by the assessee in F.Y. 2016-17 was Rs.9,06,00,243/- and the actual expenses incurred from 01.04.2017 to 23.01.2018 was Rs.3,39,08,178/- and thus the total expense incurred by the assessee in the construction was of Rs.12,45,08,421/- which was valued at Rs.13,08,36,369/- by the DVO. Learned CIT(A) has also noted that actual expenses of Rs.3,39,08,178/- that was incurred by the assessee during the period of 01.04.2017 to 23.01.2018 was included by DVO while arriving at the value of property of F.Y. 2016-17 at Rs.12,45,08,421/-. He noted that if the actual expenses incurred by the assessee is considered, then the difference to the valuation of structure under construction would be to the extent of Rs.63,27,948/-, which was confirmed by Learned CIT(A) and balance addition was deleted.

182. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee and Revenue both are before us.

183. Before us, both the parties submitted that on the issue of investment in construction of property a similar ground was raised in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon (supra) and the submissions made therein are adopted by the respective Ld. Representatives of the parties. Before us, Learned DR further supported the order of AO. Learned AR on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before the AO and CIT(A) and further submitted that had the DVO adopted State PWD rate for the purpose of valuation then in that event there would be no occasion for making any addition in this regard. He also placed reliance on various case laws to buttress the contentions that State PWD rate is a better guiding factor looking to the location of the property.

184. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on records. It is not in dispute that the impugned addition has been made on the basis report by DVO regarding construction cost of the property in question. The assessee claimed cost of construction on the actual expenditure incurred and booked in the books of accounts on the other hand the AO made addition by relying on value estimated by the DVO.

The assessee pointed to two serious lacuna in the report; (i) the DVO applied CPWD rates for estimating the cost of construction and; (ii) the DVO had taken value of fully constructed property but in fact the construction of property was yet to be completed. We find merit into the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the assessee as it is well settled that State PWD rate is better guiding factor for arriving at cost of construction of the property. Moreover, the Revenue has not rebutted the claim of the assessee that the property in question was yet to be completed and the DVO took the value of completed property coupled with fact that no evidence is brought on record by the AO suggesting that any expenditure more than what was booked by the assessee in its books of accounts has been incurred. In the absence of such evidence, the cost adopted by the AO is merely an estimation and pure guess work. Therefore, following our decision in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 (supra), we hold that the action of AO for making addition partly on the basis of a report by DVO who has failed to take note of the judicial pronouncements, adopted CPWD rate for the purpose of estimation of cost of construction cannot be sustained. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. The Ground of Assessee’s appeal is allowed and corresponding ground and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

185. In the combined result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.10.2022

Sponsored

Author Bio

Name: POONAM GANDHI

Qualification: CA in Practice

Company: N/A

Location: AHMEDABAD, Gujarat, India

Member Since: 14 Feb 2019 | Total Posts: 6491

View Full Profile

My Published Posts

HC refused to de-freeze account of company dishonestly inducing investors to invest in cloud particles Default continued beyond moratorium period not covered u/s. 10-A of IBC: Madras HC Interest on enhanced compensation u/s. 28 of Land Acquisition Act is taxable: ITAT Delhi Delay in filing income tax return results into imposition of penalty and prosecution: Karnataka HC Service tax payable only on service component in case of retreading tyres: Karnataka HC View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Sponsored

Case Law Details

Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Tags:

Author Bio

Name: POONAM GANDHI

Qualification: CA in Practice

Company: N/A

Location: AHMEDABAD, Gujarat, India

Member Since: 14 Feb 2019 | Total Posts: 6491

My Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to Our Daily Newsletter

Latest Posts

Featured Posts

Popular Posts