ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI V. M/S. MORIAS INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., RANCHI

ITSSA 4/RAN/2021

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) Patna-3, which had deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding undisclosed income of M/s. Morias Infrastructure Pvt Ltd for the assessment year 2015-16. The AO had made an addition of Rs.2.04 crores as undisclosed expenditure based on documents and statements obtained during a search and seizure operation. The CIT(A) found no evidence to substantiate this addition, leading to the revenue's appeal. The tribunal found that the AO had not adequately verified the payments related to the documents and remanded the case for further investigation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633681 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RINKU SINGH; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRID.SANNIGRAHI
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Unexplained investment; Search and seizure

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle PAN/GIRNo.AAECP 1548 H (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)Patna-3, dated 31.12.2020 in Appeal No.CIT for the assessment year 2015 2. Smt. Rinku Singh, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue and D.Sanigrahi, ld AR appeared for the assessee. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(ss)A No. 04/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ranchi Vs. M/s. Morias Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Pustak Bhawan, Kutchery road, Ranchi AAECP 1548 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri D.Sannigrahi, Revenue by: Smt. Rinku Singh, ld CIT DR Date of Hearing : 10/06/202 Date of Pronouncement :10/06/202 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld 3, dated 31.12.2020 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Patna for the assessment year 2015-16. Smt. Rinku Singh, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue and D.Sanigrahi, ld AR appeared for the assessee. P a g e 1 | 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 21 16 M/s. Morias Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Pustak Bhawan, Kutchery Respondent) D.Sannigrahi, CA : Smt. Rinku Singh, ld CIT DR /2025 /2025 This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld (A), Patna-3/10269/2017-18 Smt. Rinku Singh, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue and Shri IT(ss)A No. 04/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 P a g e 2 | 5 3. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that there was a search and seizure operation on the premises of the assessee on 20.8.2015. No return of income u/s.139 had been filed by the assessee. Notice u/s.153A of the Act came to be issued and the assessee has filed his return of income disclosing total income at Rs.3,98,66,128/-. It was the submission by ld CIT DR that in the course of search, substantial number of documents and incriminating documents were found. On the basis of the documents found, statement had been recorded from the assessee being Shri Ripunjay Prasad Singh. Ld CIT DR drew our attention to the statement of Shri Ripunjay Prasad Singh, which was shown at pages 68 to 75 of PB. She drew our attention to Q.No.16, wherein, the assessee has admitted an expenses to an extent of Rs.5,50,00,000/- being unexplained expenditure. Ld CIT DR further drew our attention to Q. No.17, which were statements recorded fromRipunjay wherein, he has confirmed property to an extent of Rs.13.80 cores and out of the same, it was submitted by ld CIT DR that the assessee had disclosed Rs.6.76 crores as unexplained investment. It was thus the submission that in Q. N.20, the assessee has admitted a total declaration of Rs.12.26 crores. It was the submission that when the assessee had filed his return of income in response to notice u/s.153A, the assesseehad not shown full disclosure but had only shown Rs.3.98 crores. It was the submission that consequently, the AO had made the addition representing the undisclosed expenditure for purchase of various properties to an extent of Rs.2.04 crores. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition by holding that IT(ss)A No. 04/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 P a g e 3 | 5 there was no evidence available to substantiate the addition of Rs.2.09 crores. It was the submission that the statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act was on the basis of evidences and on the basis of such evidence, addition of Rs.2.04 crores had been made by the Assessing Officer. It was the prayer that the order of ld CIT(A) is liable to be reversed and that of the AO restored. 4. In reply, ld AR submitted that there has been some confusion in regard to the amount of Rs.12.26 crores, which has been taken as admitted in Q. No.20 of the statement recorded. It was the submission that the actual figure was the admitted is Rs.5.50 crores in regard to expenditure incurred, which was undisclosed expenditure and the differential amount of Rs.1.26 crores representing the registration charges in respect of the property to an extent of Rs.13.80 crores purchased by the assessee. It was the submission that the purchase of Rs.13.80 crores properties were all recorded in the books of account and purchases can be substantiated. It was the submission that the actual offer was only Rs.5.50 crores + Rs.1.26 crores totalling Rs.6.26 crores. It was the submission that though the figure of Rs.6.76 crores has been recorded in Q. No.20, same has now been totalled to bring the figure of Rs.12.26 crores, which was erroneous. It was the submission of ld AR that the statement has been corrected by clarification having been issued on multiple occasions. It was the submission that this was considered by the ld CIT(A) and the addition of Rs.2.04 crores made in the hands of the assessee had been deleted. It was the further submission that this figure Rs.5.50 crores and Rs.1.26 crores were estimates and IT(ss)A No. 04/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 P a g e 4 | 5 after specifically verifying the documents, it was categorically shown that the registration charges that were of Rs.1.26cores were actually Rs.1.18 crores. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also gone through the statement recorded and Paper book filed by the assessee. The paper book contains a letter filed by the assessee explaining the amount of Rs.5.50 crores and so calledaddition of Rs.6.76 crores. There has been substantial number of clarifications to show that the actual declaration amount is not Rs.12.26 crores. However, a perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has referred to various documents but has not verified as to whether the payments in respect of said documents were through cheque or through cash. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall tally the disclosure as made by the assessee in the statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act alongwith the seized materials that has been referred to in Q. No.16 and 17. Only such disclosure as explained in Q.No.16 & 17, same is to be considered to such an extent that they are not recoded in the books of accounts The amounts which have been recorded in the books and account and proved by the assessee are not treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. IT(ss)A No. 04/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 P a g e 5 | 5 6. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 10/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 10/06/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ranchi 2. The respondent: /s. Morias Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Pustak Bhawan, Kutchery road, Ranchi 3. The CIT(A) Patna-3 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "