ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA V. M/S TIRUPATI HOMES PVT LTD, PATNA

ITSSA 22/PAT/2017

AI Insights

This case involves a batch of three appeals by the Revenue against M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. concerning the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The appeals arose from a search and seizure operation conducted on the assessee on April 28, 2011, leading to the discovery of incriminating documents. The AO initially made ex parte assessments based on these documents, estimating income and making various additions. The CIT(A) later granted substantial relief to the assessee, which the Revenue contested before the ITAT. The ITAT found that the AO had not benefited from the CIT(A)'s findings and remanded the cases for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive examination of the seized material and correct application of the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398215 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: Lal Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India, PCIT Vs. Settlement Commission (Income Tax & Wealth Tax), Mahendra Prasad Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Kolkata Vs. Mohanlal Agarwal, Bagmari Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, K.R. Ganesh Kumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Block assessment; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 144; 153A; 44AD; 40A(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A 20/PAT/2017 (Assessment Year 2008-09) IT(SS)A 21/PAT/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) & IT(SS)A 22/PAT/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Patna ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd., Arvina Apartment, Nageshwar Colony, Patna [PAN: AACFT0848F] ..........................Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Alok Kumar, Adv. Department represented by : Rajat Datta, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 21.05.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 03.06.2025 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This is a batch of 3 appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Since, all the three assessments emanates from a search action carried out on M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. on 28.04.2011, hence these three appeals are being disposed of through a single order. 2 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. 2. These three appeals have been filed by the Revenue and are against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-3, Patna [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] all dated 26.05.2017, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. These matters are heard together and are being disposed of through a common order for the sake convenience. 2.1 In all these three cases, the common factor is that certain incriminating documents were seized during the course of a search and seizure operation carried out on the assessee on 28.04.2011. Thereafter, the assessee submitted returns of income for all the three years on 27.04.2012, in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen that the assessee was unable to respond appropriately to the notices issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer, from time to time, for eliciting responses for the same. In fact, it is recorded very clearly in the Ld. AO's orders, as also the impugned orders, that the assessee was unable to make a presentation of facts before the Ld. AO and thus effectively the Ld. AO has framed the three assessment orders in an exparte manner. In fact, all the three orders are passed under Section 153A read with section 144 of the Act. It is seen that the Ld. AO has estimated income on the basis of gross receipt details found during the course of search. Thereafter the Ld. AO has applied the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act on cash payments exceeding the specified amount; has made additions on account of alleged undisclosed investment in flats; and various other additions which marginally vary in terms of the head/subject, over the course of the three impugned assessment years. 2.2 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is seen to have made a presentation of facts and is seen to have persuaded him to grant substantial relief. Briefly, in all the three years relief has been given to the assessee in terms of estimating profit on the undisclosed receipts @ 10% following the action of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) for the 3 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Secondly, it has been held by the Ld. CIT(A) that since the income has been estimated hence the addition under Section 40A(3) needs to be deleted following some case laws and on the finding that once an estimation of income is done then the assessee should get the benefit of telescoping. Thirdly, the addition on account of undisclosed investment in flats has been deleted on the ground that the seized documents apparently indicated inflated values which were projected for securing loan from the bank. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) has also accepted the contention of the assessee that the impugned additions on this account could not have been made in the assessment year under consideration. Lastly, an addition of Rs. 1,22,318/- for A.Y. 2008-09; an addition of Rs. 93,00,000/- for A.Y. 2009-10; and an addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- for A.Y. 2010-11; all made on the basis of seized material, have also been deleted. This has been done after accepting the assessee’s contention in regard to these three additions. 2.3 Aggrieved with this action of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has approached the ITAT with the following grounds which are mentioned year wise: IT(SS)A 20/Pat/2027 (AY 2008-09) “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Patna erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,61,80,000/- holding that it has been observed by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission that the gross receipts both disclosed and undisclosed have to be considered to arrive at the turnover of the appellant and net profit has to be applied on turnover of the appellant assessee and taking the rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act was taken as guiding force determining the net profit @ 10% on the turnover so determined. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)- 3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had filed settlement application u/s 245C(1) of the Act only for the A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 and not for the A.Y. 2008-09. The decision of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission is not binding in this case for the A.Y. 2008-09 as every assessment is separated assessment. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A)-3, Patna, while deleting the addition of Rs. 27,69,000/- failed to appreciate the fact that cash payments were made in excess of Rs.20,000/- in a day which are in violation of provision of section 40 A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for which benefit of telescoping does not apply as the assessee failed to furnish explanation. 4 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A)-3, Patna while erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,07,91,000/- on account of undisclosed investment in undisclosed assets (Flats) holding that the price of the flat is increased to secure a loan from bank and the inflation is not supported by any material. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna, while deleting the addition of Rs.4,07,91,000/- failed to appreciate the fact that as per seized documents KA 41-KA 43 undisclosed investment of Rs.10.85 Crores was detected and Shri S.B. Sinha, MD, accepted undisclosed investment of Rs.5.40 Crores out of which the amount of Rs. 4,07,91,000/- pertains to A.Y. 2008- 09. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna while deleting the addition of Rs.1,22,318/-, failed to appreciate that fact that addition of Rs,1,22,318/- was made on the basis of seized documents on which telescopic benefit does not apply as the assessee failed to furnish explanation.” IT(SS)A 21/Pat/2027 (AY 2009-10) “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Patna erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,96,26,651/- holding that it has been observed by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission that the gross receipts both disclosed and undisclosed have to be considered to arrive at the turnover of the appellant and net profit has to be applied on turnover of the appellant assessee and taking the rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act was taken as guiding force determining the net profit @ 10% on the turnover so determined. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)- 3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had filed settlement application u/s 245C(1) of the Act only for the A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 and not for the A.Y. 2009-10. The decision of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission is not binding in this case for the A.Y. 2009-10 as every assessment is separated assessment. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A)-3, Patna, while deleting the addition of Rs. 2,64,20,376/- failed to appreciate the fact that cash payments were made in excess of Rs.20,000/- in a day which are in violation of provision of section 40 A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for which benefit of telescoping does not apply as the assessee failed to furnish explanation. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A)-3, Patna while erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,75,62,500/- on account of undisclosed investment in undisclosed assets (Flats) holding that the price of the flat is increased to secure a loan from bank and the inflation is not supported by any material. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna, while deleting the addition of Rs.4,75,62,500/- failed to appreciate the fact that as per seized documents KA 41-KA 43 undisclosed investment of Rs.10.85 Crores was detected and Shri S.B. Sinha, MD, accepted undisclosed investment of 5 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. Rs.5.40 Crores out of which the amount of Rs. 4,75,62,500/- pertains to A.Y. 2009- 10. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna while deleting the addition of Rs.93,00,000/-, failed to appreciate that fact that addition of Rs,93,00,000/- was made on the basis of entries in bank account no. 03512000000 (Kotak Mahindra Bank) of Shri S.B. Sinha through which withdrawals were made for making investments in company fund M/s Tirupati Homes (P) Ltd. and the same was not disclosed in Balance sheet.” IT(SS)A 22/Pat/2017 (AY 2010-11) “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Patna erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,81,21,200/- holding that it has been observed by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission that the gross receipts both disclosed and undisclosed have to be considered to arrive at the turnover of the appellant and net profit has to be applied on turnover of the appellant assessee and taking the rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act was taken as guiding force determining the net profit @ 10% on the turnover so determined. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)- 3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had filed settlement application u/s 245C(1) of the Act only for the A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 and not for the A.Y. 2010-11. The decision of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission is not binding in this case for the A.Y. 2010-11 as every assessment is separated assessment. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A)-3, Patna, while deleting the addition of Rs. 3,10,16,325/- failed to appreciate the fact that cash payments were made in excess of Rs.20,000/- in a day which are in violation of provision of section 40 A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for which benefit of telescoping does not apply as the assessee failed to furnish explanation. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna, while deleting the addition of Rs.4,82,10,971/- failed to appreciate that the addition was made on the basis of seized material TH-2 to TH-4, TH-11 to TH-13, TH-17 to TH-19, TH-22 & 24 and KA-19 & 43. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna while deleting the addition of Rs.7,00,000/-, failed to appreciate that the addition was made on the basis of seized document KA-49 for which telescopic benefit does not apply as the assessee failed to furnish explanation.” 2.4 Before us, the Ld. DR emphatically asserted that the Ld. AO issued several notices to the assessee for eliciting a response from his side regarding the seized material in possession of the Ld. AO. The Ld. DR read out from various portions of the assessment orders to show that there was no compliance by the assessee with respect to the query letters issued by the Ld. AO. In fact, for A.Y. 2008-09 the opportunities provided by the Ld. 6 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. AO are mentioned on pages 3, 5 and 9 and the same were pointed out before us by the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR also argued that the Hon'ble ITSC was seized of the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 only and any decision rendered therein could not bind the Ld. AO for any other years in terms of accepting the quantification of income done by the Hon'ble ITSC. It was the submission by the Ld. DR that the Ld. AO proceeded ahead with the seized material before him and he also relied on the statement under oath of Shri S.B. Sinha, Managing Director of M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. and framed the assessment orders for the three years under consideration. The Ld. DR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) in relying on the settlement order issued by the Hon'ble ITSC in assuming that the rate of 10% needed to be applied on the undisclosed receipts/transactions visible from the seized material. It was the submissions by the Ld. DR that in this exercise the Ld. AO was nowhere in the picture. The Ld. DR also assailed the impugned orders by stating that some submissions and documents were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which persuaded him to believe that the alleged undisclosed investment in flats was nothing but inflated valuation for the purposes of obtaining a bank loan and importantly, the Ld. CIT(A) had some document before him which revealed the actual value of the flats sold by the assessee, as compared to the alleged estimated valuation seen in the seized material. For this purpose, the Ld. DR pointed out that for A.Y. 2008-09 there is a recording of fact in the impugned order at page 16 that the registered documents pertaining to the subsequent sale of flats was before the Ld. CIT(A). Regarding the addition under Section 40A(3) of the Act, it was averred by the Ld. DR that once cash payments are found to have been made for purchase of material then the assessee cannot escape the rigours of section 40A(3) of the Act, and also since the assessee did not submit any explanation as to why payments in cash needed to be made. In this way the Ld. DR stated that the Ld. AO was justified in assessing the impugned amounts as hit by section 40A(3) of the Act. Regarding the other additions, where the benefit of telescoping has been provided by the Ld. CIT(A), it was averred that the whole exercise before the Ld. CIT(A) was undertaken 7 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. between the assessee and him only, as there is no indication whatsoever that the Ld. AO was involved at any stage in this exercise. In similar manner, the addition of Rs. 93,00,000/- in A.Y. 2009-10, made by the Ld. AO, was also supported by the Ld. DR by showing that since no details were provided by the assessee from his side hence the Ld. AO was left with no option but to utilise the seized material for making the said addition. 3.1 The Ld. AR on the other hand, supported the impugned orders and stated that the action of Hon'ble ITSC in AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 would form a good precedent for the authorities below in terms of estimating the quantum of income from the seized material indicating details of undisclosed receipts. The Ld. AR mentioned that the additions on account of undisclosed investment in flats were erroneous since the Ld. AO had misdirected himself in making the additions in assessment years to which such investments did not pertain to and also that the figures adopted by the Ld. AO had no basis in reality since they were inflated figures prepared for obtaining a substantial bank loan. It was stated by the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) was convinced only after these facts were brought to his notice and also the actual sale price of the flats mentioned in the Ld. AO's orders were presented before him. Regarding the addition of under Section 40A(3) of the Act it was stated by the Ld. AR that once the entire receipts were subjected to an estimation of profits then there was no ground for any disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act. For this proposition, the Ld. AR relied on several case laws of High Courts and ITAT. The Ld. AR concluded his arguments by supporting the impugned orders and saying that the action of Ld. CIT(A) was in line with fact, seized material and the law of the land. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have perused the impugned orders and the orders of Ld. AO. Right at the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the Ld. AO proceeded ahead without the benefit of any response from the side of the assessee. In fact, the Ld. AR mentioned during the course of his argument that they could not make a full 8 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. presentation of facts before the Ld. AO since they were pre-occupied with proceedings before the Hon'ble ITSC. It is seen that the Ld. AO provided several opportunities very specifically on the points of dispute and the same were not utilised by the assessee. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the presentation made before him and has also relied on the order of Hon'ble ITSC dated 30.09.2015, passed under Section 245D(4) of the Act. It is clear that the Ld. AO could not have had the benefit of this order since all the three assessment orders are dated 21.01.2014, that is prior to the ITSC’s order. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) appears to have been presented with details of the value realised from the sale of flats which, on a plain reading of the Ld. AO's orders, reveals that such details were not before him. We cannot also be persuaded by the Ld. AR's arguments that the estimation of income by the Hon'ble ITSC for some assessment years would form a binding precedent for the assessing authorities in terms of assessing income from undisclosed receipts in a manner so determined by the Hon'ble ITSC on this issue. We draw strengthen from the case of Lal Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 391 ITR 305 (Patna) where in para 32, the following is recorded: “32. Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi [1993] 201 ITR 611/68 Taxman 59, in para 14 of which it has been held as follows:— \"14. It is true that the finality clause contained in Section 245-I does not and cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 or under Article 136, as the case may be. But that does not mean that the jurisdiction of this Court in the appeal preferred directly in this court is any different than what it would be if the assessee had first approached the High Court under Article 226 and then come up in appeal to this court under Article 136. A party does not and cannot gain any advantage by approaching this Court directly under Article 136, instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226. This is not a limitation inherent in Article 136 it is a limitation which this court imposes on itself having regard to the nature of the function performed by the Commission and keeping in view the principles of judicial review. May be, there is also some force in what Dr. Gauri Shankar says viz., that the order of commission is in the nature of a package deal and that it may not be possible, ordinarily speaking, to dissect its order and that the assessee should not be permitted to accept what is favourable to him and reject what is not. According to learned counsel, the Commission is not even required or obligated to pass a reasoned order. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is open to the Commission to accept an amount of tax by way of settlement and to prescribe the manner in which the said amount shall be paid. It may condone the defaults and lapses on the part of the assessee and may waive interest, 9 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. penalties or prosecution, where it thinks appropriate. Indeed, it would be difficult to predicate the reasons and considerations which induce the commission to make a particular order, unless of course the commission itself chooses to, give reasons for its order. Even if it gives reasons in a given case, the scope of enquiry in the appeal remains the same as indicated above viz., whether it is, contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. In this context, it is relevant to note that the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) has been incorporated in Section 245-D itself. The sole overall limitation upon the Commission thus appears, to be that it should act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The scope of enquiry, whether by High Court under Article 226 or by this Court under Article 136 is also the same whether the order of the Commission is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and if so, has it prejudiced the petitioner/appellant apart from ground of bias, fraud & malice which, of course, constitute a separate and independent category. Reference in this behalf may be had to the decision of this Court in Sri Ram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission 176 I.T.R. 169, which too was an appeal against the orders of the Settlement Commission. Sabyasachi Mukharji J., speaking for the Bench comprising himself and S.R. Pandian, J. observed that in such a case this Court is \"concerned with the legality of procedure followed and not with the validity of the order.' The learned Judge added 'judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the decision- making process.' Reliance was placed upon the decision of the House of Lords in Chief Constable of the N.W. Police v. Evans [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1155. Thus, the appellate power under Article 136 was equated to power of judicial review, where the appeal is directed against the orders' of the Settlement Commission. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the only ground upon which this Court can interfere in these appeals is that order of the Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Act and that such contravention has prejudiced the appellant. The main controversy in these appeals relates to the interpretation of the settlement deeds though it is true, some contentions of law are also raised. The commission has interpreted the trust deeds in a particular manner, Even if the interpretation placed by the Commission on the said deeds is not correct, it would not be a ground for interference in these appeals, since a wrong interpretation of a deed of trust cannot be said to be a violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, it is equally clear that the interpretation placed upon the said deeds by the Commission does not bind the authorities under the Act in proceedings relating to other assessment years. ……..\" (emphasis added). The decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court merely illustrates the position of law which can also be seen in the case of PCIT Vs. Settlement Commission (Income Tax Act & Wealth Tax) reported in 438 ITR 258 (Cal). Attention is drawn to para 13.1 of this case law. In any case, this case laws also follows the judgement in the case of Jyotendrasinhji Vs. S.I. Tripathi reported in 201 ITR 611 (SC) [para 15]. Respectfully following theses judgments, it deserves to be held that the assessment on the basis of undisclosed income, evidenced by documents found during the course of search and seizure, would have to stand on their own feet before the Ld. AO and at best the Ld. AO can draw 10 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. some inspiration from the process and formulae adopted by the Hon'ble ITSC with respect to estimating income in the assessment years before them. To this extent, we cannot support the action of Ld. CIT(A) in terms of him adopting the formula of estimating profit from undisclosed receipts on the basis of the findings of the Hon'ble ITSC. In any case, it is very much clear that the order of Hon'ble ITSC was not before the Ld. AO. 4.1 Regarding the issue of application of 40A(3) of the Act on undisclosed receipts and evidences of payments made in cash, we draw considerable support from following cases: (a) Mahendra Prasad Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 160 taxmann.com 233 (Patna) [paras 9-13] (b) Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Kolkata Vs. Mohanlal Agarwal reported in 393 ITR 402 (Cal). In this case, it has been held that even in the case of block assessment, it is mandatory to apply the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. (c) Bagmari Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 251 ITR 640 (Calcutta). In this case, it has been held that even when the payments are genuine they cannot be allowed in case the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act has been violated. (d) K.R. Ganesh Kumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 383 ITR 165 (Madras). In this case, it has been held that in case of block assessment, section 40A(3) of the Act would apply to all payments covered under the said section in case they do not fall within the exceptions permitted in the Rules governing such payments. Respectfully following these orders, it is held that the assessee has not been able to prove that he is covered under any of the exceptions in Rule 6DD of the IT Rules. Thus, at least in principle the action of Ld. AO is worth supporting. 4.2 Regarding the addition on account of alleged undisclosed investments in flats is concerned, we see that the Ld. AO worked out the impugned 11 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. additions on the basis of seized documents. Since the assessee did not present himself before the Ld. AO for any clarification etc. Hence, the Ld. AO is seen to be justified in the assessment made by him. However, we are conscious of the fact that some of details available with the Ld. CIT(A) would tend to indicate that some of the investments may not be assessable in the impugned assessment years. The value adopted by the Assessing Officer, based on the seized material and the statement under oath of Shri S.B. Sinha could be inaccurate with respect to the quantum as also the year of assessibility of the same. 4.3 Regarding the other sundry additions which form the last grounds of appeal in all of the three years, it is felt that these issues could have easily been settled at the level of Ld. AO in case the assessee had made a full presentation of facts before him. It is felt that while the benefit of telescoping could be available to the assessee in some cases, though the same cannot be resorted to on an adhoc basis, only after taking a holistic view. 4.4 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions in paras 4 to 4.3 (supra), it is felt that the ends of justice will be served in case all these three matters are remanded to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment, after setting aside the impugned orders in all the three years. The Ld. AO would do well to carefully follow the findings given in paras 4 to 4.3 (supra) and re-examine the material before him and thereafter assess the correct income of the assessee. As far as the assessee is concerned, we would expect that he would make an appropriate presentation of facts and arguments before the Ld. AO so that the correct income for the correct assessment year is determined for taxation. 5. In result, the three appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 12 IT(SS)A 20-22/PAT/2017 M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd. Order pronounced on 03.06.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) (Sanjay Awasthi) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 03.06.2025 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd., 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Patna 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "