ACIT, NEW DELHI V. M/S. BULLAND LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 4812/DEL/2014

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) which had deleted various additions made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of Shri Ramkesh Basist and M/s. Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. The additions pertained to unaccounted money lending business, unaccounted payments, and unexplained income among others. The Tribunal examined each ground of appeal, considering the submissions and the material on record, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, primarily on the basis that the additions were not substantiated or pertained to different entities or assessment years than those claimed by the Revenue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38239 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJINDER KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: SAUBHAGY AGARWAL
• Keywords: Business income; Corroborative evidences; Document seized; Peak credit; Documents seized; Tax effect; TDS; Search and seizure
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5214/DEL/2014 (Assessment Year:2007-08) ITA No.4810/DEL/2014 (Assessment Year:2011-12) ACIT, Central Circle 25, vs. Shri RamkeshBasist, New Delhi. A-2, Devil Road, Khanpur, New Delhi. (PAN :AAMPB4374N) ITA No.4812/DEL/2014 (Assessment Year:2011-12) ACIT, Central Circle 25, vs. M/s. Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. A-2, Devil Road, Khanpur, New Delhi. (PAN :AACCB0391A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :Shri Saubhagy Agarwal, Advocate Shri Gaurav Shukla, Advocate REVENUE BY :Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06.11.2024 Date of Order : 29.01.2025 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. The Revenue has filed three appeals against the separate orders of ld. 2 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)’) dated 07.07.2014, 24.06.2014 & 25.06.2014 for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2011-12 respectively. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. ITA NO.5214/Del/2014 (AY 2007-08) 3. Now we deal with Revenue’s appeal no. 5214/Del/2014 for AY 2007-08 wherein following grounds have been raised by the Revenue :- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made by AO on account of unaccounted money lending business. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,32,15,769/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted payment of money to different parties. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 81,460/- made by AO on account of unexplained income. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any / all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 4. Grounds No.1 & 5 are general in nature, hence need not be adjudicated. 5. Apropos ground no. 2 relating to deletion of addition of Rs.80,00,000/- on account of unaccounted money lending business is 3 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 concerned,weobserved that the assessing officer has noticed during the assessment proceedings assessee has received money from Prabha Somani and Bhiduri @ interest rate of 2% and further lend the amount to others, it is nothing but money lending business. At the same time, he agreed that this transaction relates to Bulland Buildtech Pvt Ltd, accordingly, he proceeded to make substantive addition in the hands of the assessee and protective addition in the hands of Bulland Buildtech Pvt Ltd. However, in appeal, Ld CIT(A) has sustained the substantive addition in the hands of Bulland Buildtech Pvt Ltd as the transaction relates to them and deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:- “6.1 The first addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- was found to be in the nature of regular transactions of M/s BullandBuildtech Pvt. Ltd. with M/s Competent Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 60,00,000/- paid through crossed cheques in respect of Crossings Republic) and with Mr. Rajneesh Nagar (Rs. 20,00,000/- paid in cash) which appeared in bank statement, ledger accounts and cash book of that company. The same addition was made on a protective basis in the hands of M/s BullandBuildtech Pvt. Ltd. and has been decided in favour of the appellant and in that case vide Appeal No. 166/13- 14 vide order dated 23.06.2014. Disallowance was sustained to the extent of Rs. 1,66,028/- in that case being commission paid without deducting TDS. The transactions were found to relate to M/s BullandBuildtech Pvt. Ltd. and held as explained in para 7.8 of the said order. Therefore, the substantive addition in the case of the appellant is also deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed.” 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that Ld CIT(A) found that the payment of Rs. 80 Lacs is related to M/s 4 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. The Assessee is a Director in M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd and the addition made in the hands of the assessee was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) vide Order dated 07.07. 2014. We further noted that as per the said order, the same addition was made in the hands of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. on substantive basis.Further, in the case of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2007-08, ITAT in its Order dated 22.08.2019 in ITA No.1179/Del/2015 has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the amount of tax effect in the case is below the monetary limit fixed for filing of appeals by Revenue as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08thAug 2019. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts on record, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, hence, we uphold the same on this issue and accordingly, reject the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue. 8. Apropos ground no. 3, relating to addition of Rs.1,32,15,769/- on account of unaccounted payment of money to different parties is concerned, we observed that the assessee had submitted before AO that these transactions relates to Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt Ltd, however, he proceeded to make substantive addition in the hands of assessee since the documents were found in premises of the assessee and protective in the hands of the Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt Ltd. In appeal before 5 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 CIT(A), we find that this addition was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by observing as under:- “6.2 The second addition of Rs. 1,32,15,769/- was also made in the case of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. in AY 2007- 08. While allowing the appeal in that case I have held in Appeal No. 175/13-14 vide order of even date as under:- 6.3 During the remand stage, no specific objection has been raised by the revenue, except that books of account were not seized during search and not produced during assessment proceedings. The books of account were already audited and present at the time of filing of original return in November, 2007 as well as at the time of reassessment proceedings u/s. 153A. I have already held in para 3 above that for non-seizure of the books, the appellant group cannot be blamed. I also found that these amounts are loan and other liabilities of the appellant outstanding as on different dates, and are as per the accounts. The transactions in the seized documents on the basis of which additions have been made are held to be not undisclosed transactions but entered into in the ordinary course of business. In this view of the matter, the addition made is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed.” As the transactions were held to be belonging to M/s Bulland Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. and held as explained, the addition made in the case of the appellant is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed.” 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that in the order of the ld. CIT(A), it is noted that the same addition was also made in the case of M/s Bulland Leasing and Finance P. Ltd for AY 2007-08. We further note that in the appeal in the case of Bulland Leasing and Finance, the ld. CIT(A) held that the transactions were not 6 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 undisclosed transactions and had been entered into in the ordinary course of business and hence deleted the addition. The same is noted by the ld. CIT(A) in the assessee’s case at Para 6.2 as aforesaid. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the transactions were held belongs to Bulland Leasing and Finance P. Ltd. and not to the assessee. Further, the Revenue had filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of ld.CIT(A) on the deletion of said addition in the case of Bulland Leasing & Finance for AY 2007-08 and the ITAT vide order dated 01st October, 2019 in ITA No.5213/Del/2014has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the amount of tax effect is less than the monetary limits fixed for filing of appeals by Revenue as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08th Aug 2019. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, hence, we uphold the same on this issue and accordingly, reject the ground no. 3 raised by the revenue. 10. Apropos ground no. 4, relating to addition on account of unexplained income amounting to Rs. 81,460/- is concerned, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- “6.3 In the last ground of appeal, numbered 3, the third addition has been challenged. I find that appellant has substantial capital and cash in hand to explain this meagre amount of personal expenditure. There is no evidence to suggest that the expenditure has been met out of undisclosed income. The addition made cannot be sustained and is deleted.” 7 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 11. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that this addition was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 7thJuly, 2014 and as per thatorder,this amount of personal expenditure might have met out of his own funds and there is no evidence to suggest that the expenditure has been met out of undisclosed income. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, hence we uphold the same on this issue and accordingly, reject the ground no.4 raised by the revenue. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2007-08 is dismissed. ITA No.4810/DEL/2014 (AY 2011-12) 12. The Revenue has taken following Grounds of Appeal in AY 2011-12 :- “1. The order of the CIT(A) is not correct tin law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,24,000/- made by AO on account of unaccounted cash. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,53,580/- made by AO on account of unaccounted jewellery. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,03,53,823/- made by AO on account of unaccounted receipts from Chit Fund business. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,43,80,042/- 8 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 made by AO on account of account of unaccounted payment to different parties. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,11,06,950/- made by AO on account of unaccounted money transaction. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any / all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 13. Grounds No.1 & 7are general in nature, hence need not be adjudicated. 14. Apropos ground no. 2, relating to addition on account of unaccounted cash amounting to Rs.1,24,000/- is concerned. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- “…In the remand report, it has been confirmed that statement of affairs was indeed filed showing cash balance of Rs. 1,62,000/- in the hands of the appellant as on 31.3.2011. The opening capital of the appellant as on 1/4/2010 was Rs. 59,27,073/-. Thus, the appellant had sufficient resources to explain the source of the cash found. The cash was also not seized, implying that the search team was satisfied about the source of cash on the date of search. This addition, based on incorrect fact, cannot be sustained and is deleted…” 14.1 Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find thatin the remand report, the AO has confirmed that Statement of Affairs filed by the assessee has declared cash balance of Rs.1,62,000/- as on 31.3.2011. The cash was not seized, thus implying that the AO is satisfied with cash in hand. Hence, ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the same and accordingly, reject the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue. 9 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 15. Apropos ground no. 3, relating to addition on account of unaccounted jewellery amounting to Rs.16,53,580/- is concerned. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- “...As regards jewelry found, it was submitted that these were ancestral jewelry belonging to different ladies in the family living jointly. The addition was made in the absence of member- wise details and documentary evidence. Firstly, the jewelry was not seized, indicating that the search team was satisfied about the ownership and source of jewelry found on the date of search. Secondly, it is customary among ladies and also men in Indian families to hold ancestral jewelry. The CBDT has prescribed that gold ornaments to the extent of 500 gms per married lady, 250 gms per unmarried lady and 100 gms per married male need not be seized. This instruction takes into account the customary practice in Indian households. As per details submitted before AO, the joint family of the appellant consisted of appellant’s mother Smt. Parmali Devi, appellant’s wife Smt. MaganBasist, appellant’s brother Shri Sharda Ram and his wife Smt. Ratna Devi. All these persons were separately assessed to tax. Thus, there were at least three married ladies and two adult males in the family and the gold ornaments they could have held as per customs and permitted by the CBDT was 2000 gms. The value of such ornaments would have exceeded Rs.50,00,000/- and as the value of jewelry found was only Rs. 16,53,580/-, it could not be concluded that such jewelry was purchased out of undisclosed income of the appellant. The addition of jewelry also cannot be sustained and is deleted.” 16. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that during the assessment proceedings, the jewellery found during the search valued at Rs.16,53,580/- and it was added as unaccounted jewellery in the hands of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has not furnished member-wise details of jewellery owned by 10 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 them nor have furnished any documentary evidence to prove it pertains to all the family members and source of acquisition of the same. 17. However, we find that ld. CIT(A) noted that ancestral jewellery was found and the amount was within the limit prescribed in the CBDT instruction vide instruction No. 1916 dated 11.5.1994. Therefore, it will notfall under the category of undisclosed income/assets of the assessee. Hence, in our view, ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the same and accordingly, reject the ground no. 3 raised by the revenue. 18. Apropos ground no. 4, relating to addition on account of unaccounted receipt from Chit Fund Business amounting to Rs.4,03,72,823/- is concerned. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- “7.2 Para-6 of the AO; Ground No.3: The next addition of Rs.4,03,72,823/- relates to undisclosed chit fund business of the appellant. This addition has been made in equal proportion in the case of the appellant as well as Shri Rajneesh Nagar, another director of Bulland group. The matter was decided in the case of Shri Nagar in Appeal No.l69/13-14 vide order dated 07.02.2014 as under: \"4.1 Facts are that a search and seizure was conducted on the premises of the appellant, as part of search and seizure on the Bulland group of cases. The appellant is director in the companies of this group. During the course of search, assets and documents were found I seized. Among the seized documents, three documents I registers (Annex A-3 PP 1-224; A-4 PP 1- 318; A-5 PP 11 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 1-188) were found at A-2, 2nd Floor, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi by search party P-l and seized, The business premises of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. These documents indicated a chit fund business, being run to privately finance the business or other financial needs of the members of the fund. Based on the entries recorded therein, the directors of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bulland Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. admitted undisclosed income of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, Rs.50,00,000/- each in the hands of appellant and Sh. Ramkesh Basist, the two directors. The main dispute is regarding the income to be determined on the basis of these registers. In dispute are also additions based on assets found / seized and certain other additions based on other documents seized. 4.2 The case of the appellant was that the entries and calculation based on such entries were incorrectly worked out by the revenue. To verify this claim, the matter was remanded to the AO, who has worked out the actual amounts on the basis of these seized documents vide his letter dated 07.01.2014 / 23.01.2014 as collections / receipts-Rs.12,51,61,077/-; payments- Rs.l2,64,39,808/-; receivables / assets-Rs.25,19,73,967/-; and closing balance / liabilities-Rs.25,20,78,074/-. Based on these figures, and by applying the formula adopted in the assessment order, the income from the undisclosed chit fund business comes to Rs.13,82,838/-, and its apportionment @ 50% to the two directors, including the appellant, comes to Rs.6,91,419/- each. 4.3 The entries in these documents are stated to be receipts / payments relating to some chit fund business. The details of this business are not available. Therefore, another way of looking at these transactions is that these are simply undisclosed cash receipts & payments. On this basis also, the ARs were directed to work out the peak balance. The maximum peak balance by this working comes to Rs.20,46,784/- This is the maximum undisclosed funds available with the appellant and his partner in the business at any point of time during these transactions. This amount is admittedly and decidedly undisclosed. 12 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 Further, the turnover of this business would have generated some commission / brokerage Income, which fact also stands admitted by the appellant. Since these amounts are higher than Rs.13,82,838/- worked out on the basis of the formula adopted in the assessment order, the maximum undisclosed fund embedded in these transactions is taken at Rs.20,46,784/-. Further, a commission / brokerage of 2.0% (common in finance 1 real estate brokerage business) on the total payments of Rs.12,64,39,808/- amounts to Rs.25,28,796/-. Therefore, undisclosed income of the appellant from undisclosed chit-fund business shall be Rs.22,87,790/- (i.e. @ 50% of Rs.45,75,580/-). I hold accordingly. The addition of Rs.4,03,72,823/-, based on incorrect entries and incorrect calculation thereon, is deleted. The third and fourth grounds of appeal are decided in these terms.\" As decided above, I hold that the undisclosed income of the appellant from undisclosed chit-fund business is Rs.22,87,790/- (i.e. @ 50% of Rs.45,75,580/-). The addition of Rs.4,03,72,823/-, based on incorrect entries and incorrect calculation thereon, is deleted. The amount of Rs.50,00,000/- admitted during search was shown as business income, from commission / brokerage in chit-fund business, in the computation filed by the appellant. The statement of affairs of the appellant as on 31.03.2011 includes the said amount of Rs:50,00,0001- and the tax on the admitted income has also been paid by the appellant.” 19. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Rajneesh Nagar in AY 2011-12. We observed that Mr. Nagar is the Co- Director in Bulland Group and the addition was deleted vide ITAT order dated 20.01.2017 in ITA No.2667/Del/2014. In view of the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, hence we uphold the 13 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 same on this issue and accordingly, reject the ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue. 20. Apropos ground no.5, relating to addition on account of unaccounted payment to different parties amounting to Rs.1,43,80,042/-is concerned.We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- “The next addition of Rs. 1,43,80,042/- alleged to be unaccounted payments to different parties as per seized document page-29 & 30 of Annexure Al. The addition was made as details of supporting evidence / books of accounts were not produced. The appellant claims that these transactions relate to M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. and are the same entries as recorded on page 35 of Annexure Al. I have gone through the seized documents at pages-29, 30 & 36 of Annexure Al. I have also compared the entries in these pages with summary recorded on page-35 of Annexure Al. While pages-29, 30 & 36 contain list of creditors / loan liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. as on 30.06.2006, 30.09.2009 and 28.02.2007, the entries of page 35 give the position of investments and financial liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. as on 23.01.2006. Many of the entries on page-35 such as B S Wahi, Beekay, M K Bhalla, Prem Chand (Dheeraj), being loan creditors, are common. Therefore, these documents record common transactions / liabilities on different dates and for different purposes. Some of the transactions are again added in Para-9 of the assessment order and are discussed in the next ground. In any case, all these transaction relate to FY 2006-07 relevant AY 2007-08 and cannot be added in the hands of the appellant in this AY. The additions are, therefore, deleted.” 21. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that the payments relates to M/s Bulland Leasing and Finance Ltd. and all payments pertains to AY 2007-08, therefore, the same cannot be 14 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 added in the hands of the assessee in AY 2011-12 and thus was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, hence we uphold the same on this issue and accordingly, reject the ground no. 5 raised by the revenue. 22. Apropos ground no.6, relating to addition on account of unaccounted money transaction amounting to Rs. 2,11,06,950/- is concerned. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- “The last addition of Rs.2,11,06,950/- relates to alleged unaccounted transactions based on seized documents at pages 31, 35, 36-41 & 43-51 of Annexure A1. Of these transactions, Rs.49,74,165/- is said to relate to M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 1,80,000/- relates to M/s Bulland Automobiles and the remaining Rs.1,-35,42,785/- (this is the actual amount as Rs.24,10,000/- has been added twice) relates to M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. The addition of Rs.1,35,42,785/- made on a protective basis in the hands of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and has been decided in favour of the appellant in that casevide Appeal No. 166/13-14 vide order of even date. For the reasons recorded in Para-7.9 of the said order, this addition is deleted. The amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- is found to be cash balance of M/s Bulland Automobiles as on 23.01.2011 copy of the day cash book filed reveals the said balance. This addition also cannot be sustained and is deleted. The addition of Rs.49,74,165/-, made on the basis of page-36, is said to be liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the period 30.09.2006 to 23.10.2006. This has been found recorded in the list of sundry creditors filed for the said periods. In any case, the transaction does not relate to this AY and no addition based on these entries can be sustained herein. These additions are, therefore, deleted.” 23. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that out of total addition, Rs.49,74,164 is related to M/s Bulland Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Rs.1,35,42,785/- relates to M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 1,80,000/- relates to M/s Bulland Automobiles. In this 15 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 regard, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition of Rs.49,74,164/- is the liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. and pertains to AY 2007-08 and this addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee in AY 2011-12. It was further submitted that the addition of Rs. 1,35,42,785/- was made on a protective basis in the hands of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and decided in favour of theassessee in that case vide order in Appeal No. 166/13-14 dated 23.06.2014. Thus, the addition was rightly deleted in the hands of assessee. He further submitted that since the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was found to be cash balance of M/s Bulland Automobiles, the action is not sustainable. It is noted that ld. CIT(A) observed that the above transactions pertain to some other entities and in other assessment years, hence, the same was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, hence we uphold the same on this issue and accordingly, reject the ground no.6 raised by the Revenue. 24. In the result, Revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed. ITA No.4812/Del/2014 (AY 2011-12) in the case of ACIT vs. Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. 25. The Revenue has filed the appeal for AY 2011-12 raising following grounds of appeal :- 16 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in : 1. The order of the CIT (A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,43,80,042/- made by Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted cash. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.49,74,165/- made by Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted money transaction.” 26. Ground No.1 is general in nature, hence does not require any adjudication. 27. At the outset, with regard to grounds no.2 & 3, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that since both the transactions are pertained to AY 2007-08, the additions are not sustainable in AY 2011-12 and, therefore, deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in paras 4.2 & 4.3 and 5.2 & 5.3 of his order. For the sake of clarity, paras 4.2 & 4.3 and 5.2 & 5.3 of ld. CIT (A)’s order is reproduced below :- “GROUND NO.2 4.2 I have considered the assessment order, submissions made and the records of the case. In the case of Sh. Ramkesh Basist, director, I have held in Appeal No.182/13-14 vide order dated 24.06.2014 as under: \"7.4 Para-8 of the AO; Ground No.5: The next addition of Rs.l,43,80,042/- alleged to be unaccounted payments to different parties as per seized document page-29 & 30 of Annexure A1. The addition was made as details of supporting evidence I books of accounts were not produced. The appellant 17 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 claims that these transactions relate to M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. and are the same entries as recorded on page 35 of Annexure AI. I have gone through the seized documents at pages-29, 30 & 36 of Annexure AI. I have also compared the entries in these pages with summary recorded on page-35 of Annexure A1. While pages-29, 30 & 36 contain list of creditors / loan liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. as on 30.06.2006, 30.09.2009 and 28.02.2007, the entries of page 35 give the position of investments and financial liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. as on 23.01.2006. Many of the entries on page-35 such as B S Wahi, Beekay, M K Bhalla, Prem Chand (Dheeraj), being loan creditors, are common. Therefore, these documents record common transactions / liabilities on different dates and for different purposes. Some of the transactions are again added in Para-9 of the assessment order and are discussed in the next ground. In any case, all these transaction relate to FY 2006-07 relevant A Y 2007-08 and cannot be added in the hands of the appellant in this AY. The additions are, therefore, deleted.\" 4.3 In view of the above, the matters are to be examined in the Appeal for A Y 2007-08. Addition made in this A Y is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed. Ground No.3 5.2 I have considered the assessment order, submissions made and the records of the case. In the case of Sh. Ramkesh Basist, director, I have held in Appeal No.182/13-14 vide order dated 24.06.2014 as under: \"7.5 Para-9 of the AO; Ground No.6: The last addition of Rs.2,11,06,950/- relates to alleged unaccounted transactions based on seized documents at pages 31, 35, 36-41 & 43-51 of Annexure AI. Of these transactions, Rs.49,74,165/- is said to relate to M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Rs.1,80,000/- relates to M/s Bulland Automobiles and 18 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 the remaining Rs.1,35,42,785/- (this is the actual amount as Rs.24,10,000/- has been added twice) relates to M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. The addition ofRs.1,35,42,785/- made on a protective basis in the hands of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and has been decided in favour of the appellant in that case vide Appeal No.166/13-14 vide order of even date. For the reasons recorded in Para-7.9 of the said order, this addition is deleted. The amount of Rs.1,80,000/- is found to be cash balance of M/s Bulland Automobiles as on 23.01.2011 copy of the day cash book filed reveals the said balance. This addition also cannot be sustained and is deleted. The addition of Rs.49,74,165/-, made on the basis of page-36, is said to be liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the period 30.09.2006 to 23.10.2006. This has been found recorded in the list of sundry creditors filed for the said periods. In any case, the transaction does not relate to this A Y and no addition based on these entries can be sustained herein. These additions are, therefore, deleted.\" 5.3 In view of the above, the matters are to be examined in the Appeal for AY 2007-08. Addition made in this A Y is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed.” 28. Ld. AR further submitted that the Revenue has filed appeal before the ITAT for AY 2007-08 which was dismissed due to low tax effect by the ITAT vide order dated 01.10.2019 in ITA No.5213/Del/2014. Accordingly, ld. AR prayed that the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue may be rejected and the appeal filed by the Revenue be dismissed. 29. Ld. DR for the Revenue did not controvert the proposition made by the ld. AR, however he relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 19 ITA Nos.5214, 4810 & 4812/DEL/2024 30. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After going through the order of ld. CIT (A), we observed that ld CIT(A) has deleted the proposed addition during the year for the reasons that the additions are made during this year involving the transactions which pertains to the AY 2007-08 and Further it was brought to our notice that the same additions were the matter of disputed before the ITAT and the same was dismissed on the issue of low tax effect vide order ITA No. 5213/Del/2014 dated 01.10.2019. Therefore,we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) and the same deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 31. To sum up : all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 29th January, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 29.01.2025 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "