ANTS STUDIO PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD V. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 122/AHD/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Ants Studio Private Limited appealing against the orders of the CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad, which confirmed various additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer under different sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2013-14. The primary issues revolved around the treatment of cash deposits in bank accounts as unexplained income under section 68, disallowances under section 40(a)(ia), and the treatment of suppressed accumulated profit. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the inability of the appellant to provide necessary documents and details during the assessment and appellate proceedings, primarily due to changes in the company's management and the death of a key director.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774482 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALPESH PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH GANDHI
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 68; 43B; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13&2013-14 Ants Studio Private Limited, 210, Anal Apartment, Nr. Commerce Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. [PAN – AAFCA 0370 D] Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(2), Aaykar Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Ashram Road, Near Gandhi Bridge, Ahmedabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Suresh Gandhi, AR Revenue by Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.09.2025 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These five appeals are filed by the assessee against separate orders of CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad, all dated 05.04.2021, for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2009-10 to 2013-14 in the proceedings under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The facts involved in all these appeals are identical and all these matters were heard together. Hence, these appeals are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. We will first take up the appeal in IT(SS) No.122/Ahd/2021 for the A.Y. 2009-10. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 2 of 18 IT(SS) No.122/Ahd/2021 : A.Y. 2009-10 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds in this appeal: - “1. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.6,77,93,396/- originally made by the AO under section 68 of the Act, which was in respect of explained and accounted cash found deposited in various accounted banking accounts. 2. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.25,33,669/- originally made by the AO, by arbitrarily invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,66,700/- originally made by the AO, which was in respect of the introduction of share capital, treating the same as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.6,03,423/-, originally made by the AO, by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.9,80,195/- originally made by the AO. 6. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.6,590/- originally made by the AO, under section 43B of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.86,04,789/- originally made by the AO, which was in respect of lump sum 10% disallowances out of (i). Salary & allowance; (ii). Franchise fees; (iii) Sales & marketing expenses; and (iv). Professional charges. 8. Without prejudice and through this additional legal ground, the Appellant challenges various additions made by the AO without the same having any base or co-relation with the finding of the underlying search and by ignoring the fact of this being a non-abated year. 9. Without prejudice, the Appellant raises an additional legal ground challenging the action of the AO in not allowing the claim of set off of the business loss brought forward from earlier year(s).” Additional Ground of Appeal “Without prejudice and through this additional legal ground, the appellant challenges the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction, thereby issuing notice u/s.153C of the Act and in consequently passing the assessment Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 3 of 18 order u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. He did clearly against the provisions of law as interpreted by various judicial authorities.” 4. Shri Suresh Gandhi, Ld. AR, appearing for the assessee, explained that a search action was conducted under Section 132 of the Act in the case of Shri Vikas A. Shah on 03.01.2013, in the course of which certain incriminating material/document, as per Annexure-X, belonging to the assessee company, was found and seized. Subsequently, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act was initiated in the case of the assessee, on the basis of said seized material, for the A.Y. 2009-10 to 2014-15. The Ld. AR explained that Shri Vikas A. Shah was appointed as Director of the assessee Company w.e.f. 22.01.2010 and the erstwhile management of the company did not share the details and documents including the books of account to the newly appointed Director. As a result, the details and supporting documents as requisitioned by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment, could not be provided and the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment in an ex-parte manner. The Ld. AR further submitted that Shri Vikas A. Shah expired on 04.11.2019 and his Legal Heirs Chhaya V. Shah, wife, and Mansi V. Shah, daughter, were not at all aware of the affairs of the assessee company. As a result, no further documents could be provided before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the assessee company was not in a position to place any record before the Bench in the course of hearing of the present appeal. The Ld. AR, however, submitted that the matters may be decided considering the totality of the facts. In this regard, he has made a common synopsis of submissions for all the years involved in this appeal, which is reproduced below :- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 4 of 18 SYNOPSIS OF SUBMISSION Captioned appeals of the assessee for Asst. Years 2009-10 to 2013-14 are fixed for hearing today i.e. 21/07/2025. The assessee company humbly would like to submit as under: 1. That the scrutiny assessment orders passed u/s.153B(1) r.w.s. 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act were in facts and reality passed ex-parte since, during the course of scrutiny assessment, no details and supporting documents could be filed. 2. In the first appeal proceedings before the then Ld. CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad, Gujarat also, as can be seen from the copies of Appellate Orders for all the 5 years, the same has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte i.e. in absence of the supporting details and documents in respect of the additions/disallowances made by the then AO in the assessment orders. 3. It is submitted that Mr. Vikas A. Shah was appointed as Director of the assessee company w.e.f. 22/01/2010. The address of the registered office of the assessee company is 324, R.D. Complex, 8th Main, Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore - 360079 as mentioned in Form No. 36 filed. 4. On account of the search operation u/s.132 of the Act in case of Vikas A. Shah on dated 3rd & 4th January, 2013 and the seized materials found during the course of search pertaining to the assessee company, the cases of the assessee company were subject to proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. 5. As the address of Vikas A. Shah was of Ahmedabad, Gujarat and his case was centralized in the Central Circle, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, the cases of the assessee company (Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd.) were also transferred with the jurisdiction in Central Circle, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. 6. The erstwhile management of the assessee company did not share the details and documents to the newly appointed director (Vikas A. Shah) including the books of accounts etc. and accordingly, during the course of assessment proceedings u/s.153C of the Act, required details and supporting documents asked for by the AO could not be filed/furnished. Thus, the assessment orders for A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2013-14 were passed ex-parte. 7. Meanwhile, on 4th November, 2019, Vikas A. Shah expired. He has no male issue. In his family only two lady members are there, one his spouse - Chhaya V. Shah and second his daughter Mansi V. Shah. Both are not aware of the affairs of Vikas A. Shah viz a viz the assessee company Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, during the course of appellate proceedings also, which was though attended by erstwhile authorized representative Shri Deepak Gandhi, no details and Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 5 of 18 supporting documents were filed before the Ld. CIT(A). This fact has been categorically stated in each of the appellate orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In view of the above, it is a fact that the assessment framed u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act by the AO as well as the Appellate Orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) against such assessment orders are without any details and supporting documents. 9. As of now, even after trying level best, necessary details and documents for the previous years relevant to AYs. under appeal could not be traced out or collected and therefore, the assessee company is not in a position to place on record of the Hon'ble Bench. Some bank account statements for the relevant period, monthly collection details of different centres showing name of the students, amount of fees, mode of receipt i.e. cash/ cheques etc. statement of various expenses etc. are there but the same are not complete in all respect. 10. However, from the verification of the assessment order of A.Y. 2009-10 and subsequent year, your honours can observe that one of the major additions is on account of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee company treating it as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. The same has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. For ready reference, year-wise details of the addition on account of cash deposits in bank account treating it as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act is given hereunder: Sr. No. Asst. Year Amount of Addition 1 2009-10 6,77,93,396 2 2010-11 2,68,04,665/- 3 2011-12 42,46,497 11. The assessee company is engaged in the business of providing animation programs of different levels starting from basic to graduate and post-graduate programs of different duration. The registered office of the assessee company at the relevant point of time was situated at Bangalore and various Centres/branches were also located mainly in south India. The fees of the same is received from student mostly in cash or by cheques in some cases. The total receipt of fees accounted for by the assessee company for the above three years in its audited accounts is as under: Sr. No. Previous Year Asst. Year Fees Income 1 2008-09 2009-10 10,24,63,052 2 2009-10 2010-11 3,68,70,025 3 2010-11 2011-12 2,05,80,967 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 6 of 18 From the above details, it can be observed that the total fees received for a particular year is more than the cash deposited in the bank accounts and therefore, the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee company is required to be telescoped against the course/ training fees income of the assessee company for respective years. It is also submitted that the bank accounts in which such cash deposits are made directly by the students are all disclosed bank accounts and it is not the case that the bank accounts in which cash has been deposited are undisclosed bank accounts. This has not been done either by the AO or by the Ld. CIT(A) mainly because of the absence of the details and documents. 12. Under the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that to meet with the ends of justice, the telescoping of cash deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee company should be given against the course fees disclosed in the audited accounts and therefore, no separate addition on account of cash deposits should be made as done by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) 5. The first ground taken by the assessee in this appeal pertains to addition of Rs.6,77,93,396/- on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee company. The Ld. AR explained that the assessee had made total cash deposit of Rs.6,77,93,396/- in different bank accounts, which represented course fee received by the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that the assessee company was engaged in the business of providing animation programmes of different levels starting from primary to graduate and post-graduate programs of different duration. The registered office of the company, at the relevant point of time, was in Bangalore and various centres/branches were located at different places, mainly in south India. The fee for the programs offered was received from the students mostly in cash and sometimes in cheque as well. The Ld. AR explained that the total course fee received and accounted for by the assessee company in its audited accounts for the A.Y. 2009-10 to 2010-11 was as under: - Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 7 of 18 S.No. Assessment Year Course Fee received 1. 2009-10 Rs.10,24,63,052/- 2. 2010-11 Rs.3,68,70,025/- 3. 2011-12 Rs.2,05,80,967/- 5.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the course fee received in cash was deposited in different bank accounts of the assessee and that the total course fee received was much more than the actual amount of cash deposits. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in treating the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the addition for the reason that the assessee was unable to produce cash book and other required details and documents. The Ld. AR explained that all the bank accounts of the assessee, in which the deposits were made, were disclosed in audited books of accounts. He, therefore, requested that telescoping of the cash deposits in the bank should be given with the course fee disclosed in the audited accounts. 6. Per contra, Shri Alpesh Parmar, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that student-wise fee received in cash along with the cash book was not provided by the assessee in support of its contention that cash deposits in the bank account represented course fee received by the assessee. He submitted that in the absence of cash book, copy of ledger and any other evidence in support of course fee received as well as the details of student-wise course fee received in cash and cheques, the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained. He, therefore, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities on this issue. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 8 of 18 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The fact that the assessee was running various courses of animation training at different centres has not been denied. From the details of cash deposits, as per Annexure-A to the assessment order, it is found that the assessee was maintaining bank account at 40 different centres, out of which cash deposits were made at 25 centres only. In fact, there was no transaction at all in the bank account at 13 centres. Considering the fact that cash deposits were made in the bank account at 25 different centres, the contention of the assessee that the cash deposits represented course fee of the students received by those centres, couldn’t have been brushed aside. The Assessing Officer had not disputed the fact that the course fee of Rs.10,24,63,052/- was disclosed in the accounts of the assessee during the current year. Merely because the details of the course fee and the ledger account was not produced in support of the cash deposits, this does not negate the course fee receipt of the assessee already disclosed in their accounts and offered for taxation. The submission of the assessee that all the bank accounts in which cash deposits were made, was already disclosed in the accounts of the assessee, has also not been controverted by the Revenue. The total cash deposits of Rs.6,77,93,396/- in the bank accounts of the assessee was much less than the course fee of Rs.10,24,63,052/- disclosed in the current year. Considering this fact, the Assessing Officer was not correct in treating the cash deposits of Rs.6,77,93,396/- in the bank accounts as unexplained. It is not the case that the cash deposits were in excess of the course fee disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any justification for treating the cash deposits, which represented course fee receipt of the year, as unexplained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.6,77,93,396/- on account of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 9 of 18 unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts, is deleted. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed. 8. All other grounds taken by the assessee, including the additional legal ground, were not pressed by the Ld. AR in the course of hearing. Hence, the ground nos.2 to 9 and the additional ground as taken by the assessee, are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee, being IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 for A.Y. 2009-10, is partly allowed. IT(SS)A No.123/Ahd/2021 : AY 2010-11 10. The grounds taken by the assessee in this year are as under: - “1. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.2,68,04,665/- originally made by the AO under section 68 of the Act, which was in respect of explained and accounted cash found deposited in various accounted banking accounts. 2. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.10,81,37,020/- originally made by the AO, which was done by arbitrarily treating this as suppressed accumulated profit. 3. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,13,324/- originally made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Without prejudice and through this additional legal ground, the Appellant challenges various additions made by the AO without the same having any base or co-relation with the finding of the underlying search and by ignoring the fact of this being a non-abated year. 5. Without prejudice, the Appellant raises an additional legal ground challenging the action of the AO in not allowing the claim of set off of the business loss brought forward from earlier year(s).” Additional Ground of Appeal “Without prejudice and through this additional legal ground, the appellant challenges the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction, thereby issuing notice u/s.153C of the Act and in consequently passing the assessment Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 10 of 18 order u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. He did clearly against the provisions of law as interpreted by various judicial authorities.” 11. Ground no.-1 pertains to addition of Rs.2,68,04,665/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts. The facts are identical to A.Y. 2009-10 as already discussed in IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 earlier. The cash deposits of Rs.2,68,04,665/- was explained to be on account of course fee received during the year. The total course fee received in this year was Rs.3,88,74,653/-, which was duly disclosed in the accounts and was much higher than the cash deposits made during the year. The facts being identical, the decision taken in IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 for the A.Y. 2009-10 on this issue, is applicable to this year as well. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and the ground of the assessee is allowed. 12. Ground no.-2 pertains to addition of Rs.10,81,37,020/- on account of suppressed accumulated profit. The Ld. AR explained that this addition was made on the basis of seized material, wherein the accumulated profit was shown at Rs.10,88,99,951/- and the Assessing Officer after allowing deduction for opening balance of accumulated profit as on 01.04.2009, had made addition for the balance amount of Rs.10,87,58,993/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the seized documents were not authenticated by any management person of the company and was not a reliable evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on that basis is not correct. 13. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the correctness of the seized document, on the basis of which this addition was made, was duly demonstrated by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order itself. He Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 11 of 18 explained that various balances as appearing in the seized documents were found tallying with the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, the profit amount as appearing in the seized document was rightly held as correct by the Assessing Officer. He, therefore, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities on this issue. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. It is found that page no.- 27 Annexure-AA2 seized in the course of search, was reflecting accumulated profit as on 31.03.2010 at Rs.10,88,99,951/-. The assessee had simply denied the authenticity of this seized documents. The Assessing Officer had, however, demonstrated that the total unsecured loan recorded at page no.27 of Annexure AA-2 was matching with the figure of loan appearing in the Balance Sheet and books of account of the assessee company. Similarly, other figures appearing in this seized documents were also found tallying with the Tally data seized in the course of search. These finding of facts given by the AO has not been controverted by the assessee. Hence, the authenticity of the entries appearing in this seized document page no.27 of Annexure AA-2 was rightly held as correct by the AO. The Assessing Officer, after reducing the opening balance of accumulated profit of Rs.1,40,958/- as on 01.04.2009, had made addition for the amount of Rs.10,81,37,020/- on account of undisclosed profit, after reducing the profit disclosed by the assessee in its audited accounts. It is thus found that the addition has been made on the basis of correct appreciation of the seized material and the accounts of the assessee. Since the assessee has been unable to provide any explanation in this regard and also unable to controvert the findings of the AO, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. The ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 12 of 18 15. The next ground pertains to addition of Rs.12,13,324/- on account of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This ground was not pressed by the Ld. AR in the course of hearing. Hence, the same is dismissed. 16. The other grounds including the additional legal ground taken by the assessee was also not pressed by the Ld. AR of the assessee. Hence, all other grounds are dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.123/Ahd/2021 for A.Y. 2010-11, is partly allowed IT(SS)A No.124/Ahd/2021 : AY 2011-12 18. The grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal are as under :- “1. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.42,46,497/- originally made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act, which was in respect of explained and accounted cash found deposited in various accounted banking accounts. 2. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,55,91,511/- originally made by the AO, which was done by arbitrarily treating this as suppressed accumulated profit. 3. Without prejudice and through this additional legal ground, the Appellant challenges various additions made by the AO without the same having any base or co-relation with the finding of the underlying search and by ignoring the fact of this being a non-abated year. 4. Without prejudice and assuming though not admitting about the merit of the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the first Appellate Authority, the Appellant raises an additional legal ground challenging the action of the lower authorities in not granting telescoping of the addition of Rs.1,55,91,511/- towards suppressed accumulated profit against a corresponding addition of Rs.42,46,497/- in respect of cash deposited in bank account.” Additional Ground of Appeal Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 13 of 18 “Without prejudice and through this additional legal ground, the appellant challenges the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction, thereby issuing notice u/s.153C of the Act and in consequently passing the assessment order u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. He did clearly against the provisions of law as interpreted by various judicial authorities.” 19. The first ground pertains to addition of Rs.42,46,497/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. It is found that the total cash deposits in various bank account of the assessee were to the extent of Rs.42,46,497/-, whereas the total course fee received during the year was Rs.2,05,80,967/-. The facts of this year are thus identical to the facts discussed in IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 for the A.Y. 2009-10. Following the decision already taken on this issue in that appeal, the addition of Rs.42,46,497/- on account of unexplained cash deposits, is deleted. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed. 20. The next ground pertains to addition of Rs.1,55,91,511/- on account of suppressed accumulated profit as per seized documents. The Assessing Officer found that at page no.27 of the seized document Annexure-AA2 was the Balance Sheet for the Financial Year 2010-11 which had depicted the profit of the year at Rs.1,05,87,441/-. The assessee has disputed the correctness of the seized documents. The Assessing Officer had, however, co-related the other entries appearing in this seized documents with the Balance Sheet and seized Tally data and concluded that the figure of profit as disclosed in this seized document, was correct. The facts of this year are thus found identical to the ground no-2 taken by the assessee in A.Y. 2010-11 already adjudicated earlier. Following the decision already taken on this issue in IT(SS)A No.123/Ahd/2021, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the seized document, is confirmed and the ground of the assessee is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 14 of 18 21. The third legal ground taken by the assessee in this year was not pressed by the assessee and, hence, the same is dismissed. 22. The fourth ground pertains to granting telescoping of addition of suppressed accumulated profit of Rs.1,55,91,511/- against the addition of Rs.42,46,497/- in respect of cash deposits in the bank account. Since the addition in respect of cash deposit in the bank account stands deleted, this ground has become infructuous and, hence, the same is dismissed. 23. In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.124/Ahd/2021 for A.Y. 2011-12, is partly allowed. IT(SS)A No.125/Ahd/2021 : AY 2012-13 24. The grounds taken by the assessee in this year are as under: - “1. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.7,72,710/- originally made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act, which was in respect of explained and accounted cash found deposited in various accounted banking accounts. 2. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,76,695/- originally made by the AO in respect of claim of deduction in respect of depreciation. 3. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.5,88,514/- originally made by the AO by disallowing 10% of – (i) Salary & Allowance; and (ii) Other expenses.” Additional Ground of Appeal “Without prejudice and through this additional legal ground, the appellant challenges the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction, thereby issuing notice u/s.153C of the Act and in consequently passing the assessment order u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. He did clearly against the provisions of law as interpreted by various judicial authorities.” 25. The first ground pertains to Addition of Rs.7,72,710/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The facts are identical to IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 for the A.Y.2009-10. In the current year, the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 15 of 18 cash deposits of Rs.7,72,710/- was explained as part of total course fee receipt of Rs.55,00,742/-. Following the decision taken in IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 for AY 2009-10 on this issue, the addition of Rs.7,72,710/- on account of unexplained cash deposit, is deleted. The ground is allowed. 26. The ground no.2 pertains to disallowance of depreciation of Rs.9,76,695/-. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had shown addition to various assets during the year. In the course of assessment, the assessee was required to furnish copy of bills and vouchers exceeding Rs.25,000/- of such addition to assets, which was not complied. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed on addition of assets was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and an addition of Rs.9,76,695/- was made, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Before us also, no material/evidence has been brought on record in respect of the addition to assets made during the year. In the absence of any evidence to justify the addition to assets, the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the depreciation in respect of such additions. We do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, addition of Rs.9,76,695/- on account of disallowance of depreciation, is confirmed. The ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. 27. The next ground pertains to addition of Rs.5,88,514/- on account of disallowance of various expenses. The Assessing Officer had disallowed 10% of the expenses in the absence of bills & vouchers or any other supporting evidences. The Ld. AR submitted that the major expenditure was on account of salary and allowance and the Assessing Officer was Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 16 of 18 not correct in disallowing the same and further that the disallowance was also excessive. 28. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 29. We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the fact that the major expenditure was on account of salary and allowance, it will meet the ends of justice, if the disallowance as made by the AO is restricted to 5%. Accordingly, the assessee gets a relief of Rs.2,94,257/-. The ground of the assessee is allowed in part. 30. The additional legal ground taken by the assessee was not pressed, hence, dismissed. 31. In the result, the appeal of the assessee, in IT(SS)A No.125/Ahd/2021 for A.Y. 2012-13, is partly allowed. IT(SS)A No.126/Ahd/2021 : AY 2013-14 32. The grounds taken by the assessee in this year are as under: - “1. The learned CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.29,35,700/- originally made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act, which was in respect of explained and accounted cash found deposited in various accounted banking accounts. 2. Without prejudice and through this additional legal ground, the appellant challenges the invocation of the provisions of Section 153C and consequential passing of the assessment order under Section 153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the AO, which are against the express provisions of law, thus bad in law as well as on facts.” Additional Ground of Appeal “Without prejudice and through this additional legal ground, the appellant challenges the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction, thereby issuing notice u/s.153C of the Act and in consequently passing the assessment order u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. He did clearly Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 17 of 18 against the provisions of law as interpreted by various judicial authorities.” 33. The first ground taken by the assessee is in respect of addition of Rs.29,35,700/- in respect of cash deposits in the bank account. The Ld. AR submitted that the cash deposits represented the cash in hand available with the various branches and Centres. 34. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that no evidence in this regard was brought on record. Hence, the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained. 35. We have considered the rival submissions. It is found that the assessee company had closed its business activities since A.Y. 2012-13 and there was no receipt on account of course fee. The assessee had merely submitted that the cash deposits of Rs.29,35,700/- represented cash-in-hand available with various branches and centres. However, no evidence in this regard was brought on record. The assessee was duty bound to supplement this submission with primary evidence for cash-in- hand available with the various branches and centres. In the absences of any evidence to explain the source of cash deposits, the addition of Rs.29,35,700/- as made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. The ground is dismissed. 36. The other grounds taken by the assessee including the legal ground were not pressed by the ld. AR. Hence, all other grounds are dismissed. 37. In the result, the appeal of the assessee, in IT(SS)A No.126/Ahd/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14, is dismissed. 38. In the final result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 to IT(SS)A No.125/Ahd/202 for A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 & 126/Ahd/2021 A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ants Studio Pvt. Ltd. vs. The DCIT Page 18 of 18 2012-13 are partly allowed; while the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.126/Ahd/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14, is dismissed Order pronounced in the open Court on this 3rd September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Ahmedabad, the 3rd September, 2025 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPYE C Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "