M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

CO 22/JPR/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1402 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 15-08-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit; Tax effect; Documents seized; TDS
• Section: 131; 68; 132; 271(1)(c); 40A(3); 139; 143(3); 153A; 234B; 250; 13

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la- @ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd., RIICO Industrial Extn. Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCS 1826 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO Nos. 17 to 22/JP/2022 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2020-21 M/s Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd., RIICO Industrial Extn. Parbatpura, Ajmer cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Ajmer LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCS 1826 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 27/09/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The present bunch of six appeals in the case of Shree Bhagwati Machine Private Limited are filed by the revenue, and in turn the assessee 2 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer has also raised six cross objections arising out of the respective separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur [hereinafter referred to as ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act” ] all dated 17.05.2022 which in turn arise from the separate orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer all dated 30.09.2021 from assessment year 2015-16 to A. Y. 2020-21. 2. Since the issues involved in the revenue’s appeal and cross objections of the assessee for all the years are almost identical except the difference in figure of additions disputed, are common, all these appeals and cross objections were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 3. At the outset, the ld. DR has submitted that the matter pertaining to Shree Bhagwati Machine Private Limited in ITA no. 296/JPR/2022 & Co. No. 17/JPR/2022 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are 3 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer exactly identical except the difference in the amount in other assessment year. The ld. AR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore, for the purpose of the present discussions, the case of ITA No. 296/JPR/2022 and CO/17/JPR/2022 are taken as a lead case of each party. Based on the above arguments we have also seen that for all these appeals and cross objections grounds are similar, facts are similar and arguments were similar and therefore, were heard together and are disposed by taking lead case facts, grounds and arguments from the folder in ITA No. 296/JPR/2022 and CO/17/JPR/2022. 4. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the Revenue has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 296/JPR/2022 before us on the following grounds; “Ground 1 "The learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts in granting relief to the assessee." Ground 2 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case for the assessment year under consideration, the Id. CIT(A) is justified in law and on facts in the deleting the addition of Rs. 3,98,12,270/ and Rs.3,35,33,211/- made u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961, in spite of the fact that Shri Yashwant Sharma was not involved in any business activity in his individual capacity and has relied upon incorrect facts without verification and accepted and accepted the peak offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma in individual capacity." Ground 3 "The learned CIT Appeal has erred by failing to appreciate the findings of the assessing officer that in the case of the assessee company, not only the peak, but the entire unaccountered receipts should have been added, and that peak cannot be relied upon without verification." 4 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Ground 4 "The learned CIT appeal has erred in facts in arriving at finding by failing to appreciate that even on the basis of peak theory, income has not been offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma, director, in assessment years 2017-18, 2018- 19 and 2019-20 and has wrongly deleted the additions made by the assessing officer even in assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20." Ground 5 ”Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,320/- on account of excess claim of rent payment.” Ground 6 “The Appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 5. The assessee has also marched the cross objection which is recorded as CO No. 17/JPR/2022. The grounds confronted in this CO are as under; “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating this ground and ld AO has erred on facts and in law in invoking provisions of sec.68 of the I.T. Act and also 115BBE of the Act while making additions of Rs.3,98,12,270/- and Rs.3,35,33,211/ as mentioned in Ground No.1 & 2 in grounds of appeal raised before CIT(A). 2. That the Ld CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating this ground whereas Id. AO has grossly erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.3,98,12,270/- and Rs.3,35,33,211/ u/s 68, without any incriminating material found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee. As per settled position of law no addition can be made u/s 153A in the cases of unabated assessments, without any incriminating material having been found during the course of search. Therefore, the addition made by the ld. AO deserves to be deleted and the assessment made by him deserves to be quashed. 3. That the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is absolutely non speaking and passed making additions of Rs.3,98,12,270/-. Rs.3,35,33,211/ and Rs. 1,48,320/- without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of being heard on these points, in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Ld CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in stating that this ground has been redressed by her during appellate proceeding and therefore, the order passed by the ld. AO is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 5 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer 4. That the Ld CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating this ground Because the approval given by the Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act to the order passed u/s 153A is without application of mind, purely in a mechanical manner, without appreciating the facts and not following the provisions/mandate of the section, which makes the order passed u/s 153A nonest, void ab initio, bad in law, the same deserves to be quashed.. 5. That the Ld CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts in not accepting this ground because the ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in charging interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.3,34,90,891/-. 6. That the Ld CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts in not accepting this ground because On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of the appeal during the course appellate proceedings. All the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 6. The common facts borne out of records applicable to entire bunch of appeals, succinctly stated are; 6.1 The brief facts of the case as culled out from the records is that the search and seizure actions u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on 13.02.2020 at the residential and business premises of the assessee group and their family members i.e. Bhagwati Group, Ajmer. Various assets found at the time of search and some of them were also seized at various places of the group at the time of action u/s. 132 of the Act. Certain incriminating documents/Loose papers/Books of account etc., were also found, inventoried and some of the them also seized or impounded at the time of 6 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer action by the Income Tax Department. On account of search, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur vide order u/s. 127 dated 18.02.2021 transferred the jurisdiction from DCIT, Circle-2 to ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer. Pursuant to this change in jurisdiction notice u/s. 153A was issued on 28.06.2021 which was duly served upon the assessee. During the year under consideration the assessee derives income under the head Business and profession. The assessee filed original return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,27,48,410/-. The assessee has not filed the return in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. 6.2 The main issues involved in this case, as found by the AO in the assessment proceedings is that during the course of search proceedings, various loose papers, documents, digital data etc. were found. During the course of assessment proceedings, it has been stated by the assessee company that after taking into account all the incriminating documents found from the various premises (business premise as well as residential premise of the Directors), prepared a memorandum cash book and offered year wise peak credit for taxation in the hands of the Director Sh. Yashwant 7 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Sharma. The contention of the assessee is not found acceptable by the AO due to the following reasons:- a) The nature of these loose papers prima facie appears to be business related transactions since name of various business concerns are mentioned therein. b) During the search proceedings while confronted Sh. Yashwant Sharma in his statements u/s 132(4) stated that the transactions in these papers specifically Exhibit-2 of Annexure AS containing page no. 1 to 66 was found from F-187 to 189, Industrial Area, Makumpura Extension, Ajmer are related to its trade. c) More importantly it claimed by the Director of the assessee company as well their employee Sh. Atma Ram Sharma that in page no. 45 to 59 of Exhibit-2 are advances taken in cash against the booking of Machinery which was according to him has been returned to the respective person/concern to whom the advance has been received after settling the bill by cheque receipts. It is very evident from the above facts and the statements u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Sh. Yashwant Sharma himself admitted that the receipts & payments are against the booking of Machinary i.e. the product 8 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer manufactured by the assessee company. Therefore, there is no dispute remain that the transactions mentioned at page no. 45 to 59 are business transactions of the assessee company. Here it is worthwhile to mention that there is no separate business activity of the Director for claiming the transaction appearing in the loose papers and which are apparently of business in nature as his own. Description of sample paper which are business in nature taken by the assessee in the memorandum cash books: Exhibit A-7 page 1 to 13 found from G-178, 179, RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer. Exhibit A-2 page no. 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 22, 23, 40, 43, 45 to 49 found from RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer. Exhibit A-3 page no. 77 etc found from F-187, 188 RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer. As mentioned earlier that the transactions mentioned in the above said pages are purely business in nature and liable to be taken into account in the hands of assessee company not in the hands of Director. However, after taking into consideration all the above papers and other transactions appearing in those papers which are not business in nature, 9 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer the Director of the assessee company has surrendered the peak of the transactions in his individual hands in the following manner: Peak surrendered by Sh. Yashwant Sharma in his individual hands memorandum cash book A.Y Peak Amount 2014-15 71,00,000 2015-16 3,98,13,270 2016-17 1,52,74,349 2020-21 3,65,00,000 Total 9,86,87,619 As mentioned above, the transactions mentioned at the loose paper are related to the assessee company only, therefore, the above given peak credit should be liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, the above peak credit of Rs. 9,86,87,619/- is being added in the hands of the company in the respective year. However, the gold jewellery of Rs. 1.84 crores over and above the limits of CBDT Circular which is included in the above peak is being excluded from the total figure of peak of A.Y. 2020-21. In this way for the year under consideration the figure which is being added on this account is Rs. 3,98,12,270/- as per provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the 1.T. Act, 1961. Further, the year wise break up of total transactions mentioned in these papers is Income in cash mentioned below: 10 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer A.Y Receipts of income in cash which is generated out of books Payments made in cash for income which is generated out of books 2014-15 1549000 5668000 2015-16 33533211 14825716 2016-17 39704312 19819025 2017-18 30356700 21334170 2018-19 59039051 41188500 2019-20 57544600 29847600 221726874 132683011 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to verify the payments from books of accounts nor did produce any supporting bills and vouchers so as to prove that these payments were actually made by the assessee company. Even though the cash payments are liable to disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, but since these are not taken into account in absence of proper verification. Therefore, the benefit of the payments cannot be extended to the assessee without any proper verification and all the receipts are held as unexplained cash credits of the assessee company in terms of provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the respective years. Hence, the amount of Rs. 3,35,33,211/ during the year is being added in the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the above order of the Assessing Officer making the addition assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. 11 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer CIT(A) has deleted the addition made in the hands of the assessee company contending that once the income is already accepted by the director of the company the same income cannot be taxed twice. Thus, before, we deal matter we perused the relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) on both the issue and the same reiterated here in below:- Finding of the ld. CIT(A) on addition of Rs. 3,98,12,270/- “(iv) I have considered the facts of the case and the arguments of the Ld. A.R. and it is observed that the A.O. has himself admitted that the alleged papers and other transactions appearing in those papers, which are not business in nature, have been incorporated by the Director of the appellant company in the memorandum cash book, on the basis of which, he has surrendered the peak of such transactions in his individual hands for the year under consideration. Further it is also observed that the AO has not objected to the peak credit offered by Sh. Yashwant Sharma, the director of the appellant company in his return of income filed in response to the notice issued to him u/s 153A of the Act. It is further observed that the return of income of the Director has been accepted by the same A.O. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was brought to my notice that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.21,67,000/ has also been levied by the Ld. AO in the hands of Sh. Yashwant Sharma, the director of the appellant company in the A.Y.2014-15 on the aforesaid income offered by him in the return of income filed u/s 153A. Therefore legally speaking the same income cannot be taxed twice, firstly in the hands of the Director and secondly in the hands of the company. Thus it is evident that the Ld. AO has considered the aforesaid income to be pertaining to the Director of the appellant company and therefore sustaining such addition in the hands of the appellant company would lead to double addition. (v) As regards the contention of the AO that Sh. Yashwant Sharma has himself admitted in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that the receipts & payments are against the booking of Machinery and that the alleged transactions are business transactions of the appellant company, it is observed that Sh.Yashwant Sharma has nowhere stated in his statement that the alleged transactions are with reference to the appellant company, though he has stated 12 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer that the cash advance is received on sale of machinery and that there are entries of cash payments as well, the summary of which has been mentioned on Pages 45 to 59 of the Exhibit 2. Infact on perusal of the statement of Sh. Yashwant Sharma recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, it is observed that in response to question no.9 of his statement, he has surrendered the undisclosed income of Rs.6.10 Crores for taxation in the hands of the appellant company/ firm/individual on the basis of these documents found from his business premises, though it is also observed that no segregation of amount of disclosure has been made in the hands of the company, firm or individual. Neither any working for disclosure has been declared in his statement. Further on perusal of the statement of Sh. Atmaram Sharma, employee of the appellant company as referred by the AO, it is observed that in response to question no. 11, Sh. Atmaram Sharma stated that the documents saved in his phone are related to M/s Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. and to Sh. Yashwant Sharma and that the whatsapp chats, documents/data and photos pertain to various parties and thus from the statement of Sh: Atmaram Sharma, it is evident that the aforesaid documents found in his mobile phone pertain to the appellant company as well as to Sh. Yashwant Sharma. Further in response to question no. 12 of the statement, Sh. Atmaram Sharma has explained that page no. 45 to 59 of Exhibit-2 are the hand written notings of cash advances received from the parties and some cash payments made and the total of receipts are at Rs. 19,86,31,123/- and these entries pertain from 2014 to 2018. Thus nowhere Sh. Atmaram Sharma has mentioned that these transactions pertain to the appellant company. (vi) Further on perusal of the copy of seized documents at Exhibit-2, it is observed that it contains the details of amount received and paid to several parties. It is also observed that it does not bear the name of either the appellant company or any other person. It merely appears to be a memoranda diary containing details of payments received and paid. The appellant has submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid documents, the Director of the appellant company, Sh. Yashwant Sharma has offered year wise peak credit for taxation in his hands. It is observed that the AO has not objected to the peak credit offered by Sh. Yashwant Sharma, the director of the appellant company in his return of income filed in response to the notice issued to him u/s 153A of the Act upon which penalty has also been levied by the A.O. considering the same to be undisclosed income of the Director detected in consequence to the search action and that too on the basis of material seized. On the other hand, it is also observed that the AO has again considered all the above papers and other transactions appearing in those papers to be business in nature and has 13 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer considered them in the hands of the appellant company by rejecting the claim of the appellant company that the unaccounted transactions have already been incorporated by Sh. Yashwant Sharma in his memoranda cash book and offered the same for taxation. Thus, the action of the AO, considering the same income in the hands of the Director as well as the Company, is not justified. (vii) It has been brought to my notice that Sh. Yashwant Sharma is running a proprietorship concern under the name & style M/s Bhagwati Engineering and filing the income tax return declaring therein the income earned from that firm. It is observed that the aforesaid firm also deals in re-sale of machinery, machinery parts and job work. The appellant contended that the income earned out of books from that business was utilized and credited in the loose papers found in the mobile of Sh. Atmaram Sharma on the basis of which memoranda cash book was prepared and the peak credit was offered for taxation in the hands of Sh. Yashwant Sharma. In view of the aforesaid facts, the contention of the AO that Sh. Yashwant Sharma does not have any separate business activity is factually incorrect. As regards the reference made by the AO to the sample papers, being business in nature and taken in the memorandum cash book, it is observed that Exhibit A-7 pages 1 to 13 are the salary sheets of the appellant company found from G-178, 179, RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer whereas the Exhibit A-2 and A-3 were found from F-187, 188, RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer which has been duly accounted for in the memorandum cash book. (viii) The AO had made the addition on account of statements given during the course of search by different persons under Section 132(4) of the Act. The income has to be taxed in the right hands i.e. in whose hand it was taxable irrespective of the admission made during search and on the basis of evidences found during the course of search proceedings or gathered during the assessment proceedings. The Id.AO has not brought any material on record to controvert the facts admitted by Sh. Yashwant Sharma that the peak credit worked out by him on the basis of the alleged documents pertains to him and not the appellant company. In the instant case, the income cannot be assessed in the hands of the appellant company since the same does not pertain to the appellant company as these documents nowhere refers the name of the appellant company and in none of the pages the name of the appellant company is mentioned. Further the AO has not brought on record any fact that any of these entries were reflected in the regular books of accounts of the appellant company and were part of the transactions recorded in the books of accounts to suggest that these are in any way related to the appellant company and not to 14 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Sh. Yashwant Sharma, Director of the appellant company. Further the AO has himself admitted that these payments are not verifiable from the books of accounts of the appellant. Rather he has admitted that it has not been proved that these payments were actually made by the appellant company. It is observed that an undisclosed income of Rs.6.10 crores has been admitted by Sh.Yashwant Sharma in the hands of the appellant company. firm and individual without bifurcating the amount of disclosure. Further from the statement of Sh. Atmaram Sharma, of the appellant company, it has been stated by him that the documents saved in his phone are related to M/s Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. and to Sh. Yashwant Sharma and that the whatsapp chats, documents/data and photos pertain to various parties and thus from the statement of Sh. Atmaram Sharma, it is evident that the aforesaid documents found in his mobile phone pertain to the appellant company as well as to Sh. Yashwant Sharma. Further the same has already been offered and taxed in the hands of the Director of the company upon which penalty has also been levied by the AO. Therefore it is an admitted fact that the income pertains to Sh. Yashwant Sharma and not to the appellant company. It is a case of multiple addition without any corroborative evidence brought on record by the Ld. AO. Therefore, on consideration of the submissions of the appellant and the facts of the case, it was seen that the income was chargeable to tax in the hands of Sh.Yashwant Sharma and not in the hands of the company, as made by the AO. Thus the aforesaid peak credit cannot be sustained in the hands of the appellant company. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 3,98,12,270/- made by the AO in the hands of the appellant company is directed to be deleted and the Grounds of appeal no.1 and 4(i) are treated as allowed. Finding of the ld. CIT(A) on addition of Rs. 3,35,33,211/- 5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under: (i) The AO has worked out the year wise breakup of the transactions mentioned in the Exhibit 2 of Annexure AS. The A.O. has contended that the assessee has failed to verify the payments from books of accounts and that no supporting bills and vouchers were produced to prove that these payments were actually made by the assessee company. It was further contended that that though the cash 15 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer payments are liable to be disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the act but they were not being taken into account in absence of proper verification. Accordingly, the benefit of payments was not allowed to the appellant and all the receipts were held as unexplained cash credits of the appellant company and an amount of Rs.3,35,33,211/- was added to the total income of the appellant for the year under consideration as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. (ii) Before me, the Ld.AR of the appellant has contended that memorandum cash book was prepared on the basis of these papers which was duly accepted in the case of Sh. Yashwant Sharma, Director in the appellant company and that the claim of payments was allowed. (iii) I have considered the facts of the case and the arguments of the Ld. A.R. and it is observed that the addition of Rs. 3,35,33,211/- has been made by the AO on account of total receipts mentioned in Annexure AS Exhibit-2. It is observed that these are the same documents on the basis of which memoranda diary was prepared and the peak credit was worked out and offered by Sh. Yashwant Sharma, Director of the appellant company, in his hands. The AO has himself admitted that the alleged papers and other transactions appearing in those papers, which are not business in nature, have been incorporated by the Director of the appellant company in the memorandum cash book. on the basis of which, he has surrendered the peak of such transactions in his individual hands for the year under consideration. Therefore in view of the above fact and the discussion made by me at para no. 4.2 of this order, wherein the transactions as per Exhibit A-2 incorporated in the memorandum cash book has been considered to be pertaining to Sh. Yashwant Sharma, Director of the appellant company and the fact that once the peak credit has already been offered and taxed in the individual hands of the Director which has also been accepted by the AO and penalty also levied on such amount in the case of the Director, therefore it is not logical to again tax the same amount offered in memorandum cash book on the basis of receipts mentioned in the above cash book. Further the fact also remains that the AO has considered the receipts but has not deliberated on either the payments made or recycling of the amount as mentioned in the seized Exhibit. (iv) Further, as regards the contention of the AO that the appellant has failed to verify the payments from books of accounts and that no supporting bills & vouchers were produced to prove that these payments were actually made by the appellant company, it is observed that it is only on this account that the Director of the appellant company has prepared the memorandum cash book 16 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer and offered the peak for taxation in his hands. Infact the AO has himself admitted that though the cash payments are liable to be disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act but they were not being taken into account in absence of proper verification. Thus it is an admitted fact that the AO has not made any verification with reference to these entries as the AO has himself admitted that these payments are not verifiable from the books of accounts of the appellant. Rather he has admitted that it has not been proved that these payments were actually made by the appellant company. Further the fact also remains that in view of these entries incorporated in memorandum cash book, the AO has not objected to the peak credit offered by Sh. Yashwant Sharma, the director of the appellant company in his return of income filed in response to the notice issued to him u/s 153A of the Act upon which penalty has also been levied by the A.O. considering the same to be undisclosed income of the Director detected in consequence to the search action and that too on the basis of material seized. Therefore considering these papers and other transactions appearing in those papers to be business in nature and considering them in the hands of the appellant company by rejecting the claim of the appellant company that the unaccounted transactions have already been incorporated by Sh. Yashwant Sharma in his memoranda cash book and offered the same for taxation, the action of the AO, considering the same income in the hands of the Director as well as the Company, is not justified. (v) Thus the aforesaid cash credit cannot be sustained in the hands of the appellant company. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 3,35,33,211/- made by the A.O. in the hands of the appellant company is directed to be deleted and the Grounds of appeal no.2 and 4(ii) are treated as allowed.” 8. Before us the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue has submitted written submission in the form of paper book in respect of the ground raised by the revenue. The submission of the made by revenue before us are reiterated here in below:- “No.DCIT/CC/AJM/2022-23/545 Date: 14.09.2022 To The Commissioner of Income-tax (DR)-1, ITAT Jaipur. 17 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer (Through Proper Channel) Sir, Sub:-Paper Book in the case of M/s Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer, (PAN AADCS1826L) for A.Y.2015-16 to 2020-21, ITA No.296 to 301/JPR/2022 Ref:- Letter No.CIT(DR)-1/ITAT/JPR/2022-23/297 dated 12.09.2022 Kindly refer to subject and reference cited. 2. As per reference mentioned (received on email) this office was asked to submit paper book containing copy of seized material and statements on the basis of which additions were made within 10 days. 3. The desired paper book is enclosed herewith. It includes a brief note, copies of relevant complete exhibits of seized papers part of which has been discussed in assessment order (Exhibit A-7 found from G-178, 179, RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer, Exhibit A-2 and Exhibit A-3 found from F-187, 188 RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer) and relevant statements as discussed in assessment order (statements u/s 132(4) dated 15.02.2020 of Shri Yashwant Sharma and statement u/s 131 dated 15.02.2020 of Shri Aatma Ram Sharma). Original Authorizations letters of PCIT (Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur, Form No.36, Orders of CIT(A), Form No.35, Assessment Orders, Grounds filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) were already submitted alongwith appeals. Copies of the same were also already provided to your goodself. However, in case any other document/file/details etc. are required, kindly intimate to this office. Encl: as above Yours faithfully (Dheeraj Kumar Gupta) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle, Ajmer As per Assessment orders in brief: Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was carried out at the Residential and Business Premises of the assessee and his family members of the Group (Bhagwati Group of Ajmer) on 13.02.2020. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the I. T. Act, 1961, it was noticed that on the basis of various loose papers, documents, digital data 18 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer etc. found/ seized during search, Shri Yashwant Sharma (Director of the assessee company) prepared a memorandum cash book and offered year wise peak credit for taxation in the hands of the Director (in individual capacity in A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2020-21). The contention of the Director of the assessee company was not found acceptable by AO, because of the reasons that the nature of the loose papers were prima facie related to business related transaction. Further, on perusal of Statement u/s 132(4) of the 1. T. Act, Shri Yashwant Sharma (Director of the assessee company) himself, admitted that the Receipts & Payments are against the booking of Machinery i.e. the product manufactured by the assessee company. Director of assessee company as well their employee Shri Atma Ram Sharma claimed that in page Number 45 to 59 of exhibit 2 are advances taken in cash against the booking of machinery which was subsequently return. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, Shri Yashwant Sharma (Director of the assessee company) has surrendered the peak of the said transactions in his Individual hands in A.Y.2014- 15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2020-21. Since the transactions appeared in these loose papers are purely of business in nature. Therefore, the given peak credit was considered to be taxed in the hands of assessee company in respective A.YS 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2020-21. Further, on perusal of year wise break up of total transactions mentioned in these papers, it appears that the assessee company has Receipts & Payments, both in Cash, which are generated out of books. During the course of Assessment Proceedings, the assessee company failed to produce any supporting Bills and Vouchers, which can prove that the said transactions were actually made by the assessee company. In absence of proper verification, all the Receipts are held as unexplained cash credits of the assessee company and benefit of payment was not extended to the assessee without proper verification. Therefore, total receipts were added in respective A.YS 2014-15 to 2019-20. i) Further in A.Y.2015-16, on perusal of P & L A/C, it is found that an amount of Rs. 13,48,320/- was debited on account of rent paid to M/s Mahalaxmi machine tools, Ajmer whereas as per details available in Form No. 26AS, the payment made on account of Rent was only Rs. 12,00,000/-. Accordingly, excess claim of Rs. 1,48,320/- made on account of rent payment was also added to the total income of the assessee. Findings of CIT(A) in brief: 19 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer The Id. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur has observed that AO has not objected to the peak credit offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma, the Director of appellant company and return of income of Director has been accepted by the same AO. The same income cannot be taxed twice. As far as admission of Directors in statement recorded u/s 132(4) in concern Id. CIT(A) observed that Director nowhere admitted that these transactions pertains to the appellant company, admission is only to the extent that these are business transactions and surrendered the undisclosed income of Rs.6.1 Crores for taxation in the hand of appellant company/ firm/ individual on the basis of documents found without any segregation. Seized material also does not bear the name of either the appellant company or any other person. AO has not objected to the peak credit offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma in his return of income. The ld. CIT(A) also mention that it has been brought to her notice that Shri Yashwant Sharma is running a Proprietorship concern under the name & style M/s Bhagwati Engineering. The Id. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur has observed that above transactions were already been incorporated by Shri Yashwant Sharma and offered the peak of same for taxation in his individual capacity. The Id. CIT(A) accepted the peak credit theory of director of assessee company and rejected the finding of AO regarding addition made by him on the basis of entire unaccounted receipt. Accordingly, the additions were deleted. i) Regarding addition of Rs.1,48,230/- in A.Y.2015-16 made on account of excess claim of factory Rent payment, Id. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur, has stated that the assessee company paid only Rs.12,00,000/- on which TDS was deducted and balance amount is the Service Tax and Cess on which TDS has not been deducted in view of Circular No. 4/2008 dated 28.04.2008. Further, it has been mentioned in the Circular that TDS u/s 1941 of the Act, would be required to be made on the amount of Rent paid/payable without including the Service Tax. In view of aforesaid Circular, the ld. CIT (A)-2, Udaipur has opined that, the Service Tax paid by the Tenant does not partake the nature of "Income" of the Landlord, who acts as a Collecting Agency for Government for collection of Service Tax only. Accordingly deleted the addition. Further remarks: In this case various incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The same includes Exhibit A-7 page 1 to 13 found from G-178, 179, RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer, Exhibit A-2 page no. 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 22, 23, 40, 43, 45 to 49/59 found from F-187, 188 RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer, Exhibit A-3 page 20 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer no. 77 etc found from F-187, 188 RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer and such other documents etc. These documents related to unaccounted business transactions in cash. Entries related to both receipt and payment side were found in these papers. Assessment year wise working of the same made by AO are as under: A.Y Receipts of income in cash which is generated out of books Payments made in cash for income which is generated out of books 2014-15 1549000 5668000 2015-16 33533211 14825716 2016-17 39704312 19819025 2017-18 30356700 21334170 2018-19 59039051 41188500 2019-20 57544600 29847600 221726874 132683011 AO found that assessee failed to verify these payments from the books of account and did not produce any supporting evidences to justify them. Being unaccounted business transactions AO made additions in the respective A.Ys. (A.Y.2014-15 to 2019-20), according to the receipt side as per above table in the hands of assessee company. On the other hand Director of the assessee company Shri Yashwant Sharma claimed to be prepared a memorandum cash book after taking into account all the incriminating documents found and offered yearwise peak credit for taxation in the hands of the Director Sh. Yashwant Sharma as under:- A.Y Peak Amount 2014-15 71,00,000 2015-16 3,98,13,270 2016-17 1,52,74,349 2020-21 3,65,00,000 Total 9,86,87,619 However, AO did not accepted the contention of the assessee and held that these transactions pertains to the assessee company not to the Director of the company because these are business transactions as per their nature and statement of Shri Yashwant Sharma & Shri Aatmaram Sharma as discussed in assessment order. Since, above said peak amount was already offered in the hand of Shri Yashwant Sharma, therefore, AO also added the same in the case of assessee company also in A.Y.2014-15 to 2016-17 as above and in A.Y.2020- 21 as Rs.1,81,00,000/- (after allowing credit of 21 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Rs. 1,84,00,000/- on account of gold jewellery out of peak of Rs.3,65,00,000/- as above). Thus, in A.Y.2014-15 to 2016-17, AO added the unaccounted cash receipt (as) worked out) as well as peak offered (by Director) both in the hand of assessee company. In A.Y.2017-18 to 2019-20, AO added the unaccounted cash receipt in the hand of assessee company. In A.Y.2020-21, AO added peak offered (by Director) in the hand of assessee company after allowing credit of gold jewellery. However, Id. CIT(A) accepted the peak theory of the assessee in the hand of Director of assessee company Shri Yashwant Sharma and didn't considered the facts & findings of the AO mentioned in the Assessment Order and accordingly deleted the additions made by AO in the hand of assessee company. It is worthwhile to mention that Id. CIT(A) mentioned that it has been brought to her notice that Shri Yashwant Sharma is running a Proprietorship concern under the name & style M/s Bhagwati Engineering and filing the income tax return declaring therein the income earned from that firm. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon it without verifying the correctness of the fact. It is worthwhile to mention that as per material on record Shri Yashwant Sharma is not involved in any business activity. On perusal of his original ITR filed prior to search by him he hasn't shown any business income in ITR from his so called Proprietorship concern. He has shown business income only from remuneration & interest received from his partnership firm namely Mahalaxmi Machine tools. Shri Yashwant Sharma hadn't shown any income from his so called proprietorship concern M/s Bhagwati Engineering in his original returns filed u/s139 in any of ITR filed prior to search for any AYS (2014-15 to 2019-20). It is only after search action when return were filed by him u/s 153A he has shown business income in AY 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016 17 and AY 2020-21 filed u/s 139 after search. It is important to note that in these AYS also business income has been shown only to the extent of income offered on the basis of above said peak based on incriminating seized material. If Shri Yashwant Sharma was actually doing any business from so called proprietorship concern under the name & style M/s Bhagwati Engineering, then there should have been normal business income also which is other than income offered on the basis of said peak based on incriminating seized material. How it can be relied that shri Yashwant Sharma was not having any normal business income under his so called proprietorship concern. It is also surprising to note even in search year AY 2020-21 any normal business income except disclosure hasn't been shown by him. It is further to note that even in revised ITRS u/s 153A he has not shown any business income from his so called proprietorship concern 22 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer in AY 2017-18 to 2019-20. How it can be relied that he was doing business in so called proprietorship concern only in the years in which he had made disclosures (AY 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 and AY 2020-21). Even Id CIT(A) has not mentioned anything in her order about the verification of this claim of assessee. She has simply written that it has been brought to her notice that Shri Yashwant Sharma is running a Proprietorship concern under the name & style M/s Bhagwati Engineering and filing the income tax return declaring therein the income earned from that firm. Without verification of the correctness of fact, Id CIT(A) relied upon it. Whereas as per material on record real facts are contrary as discussed here. It is crystal clear that Shri Yashwant Sharma was doing any business activity in individual capacity from so called proprietorship concern. Hence, unaccounted transactions found in the seized material cannot pertains to him rather pertain to any business concern of him i.e. assessee company. Ld CIT(A) has further mentioned that As far as admission of Directors in statement recorded u/s 132(4) in concern ld. CIT(A) observed that Director nowhere admitted that these transactions pertains to the appellant company, admission is only to the extent that these are business transactions and surrendered the undisclosed income of Rs.6.1 Crores for taxation in the hand of appellant company/ firm/ individual on the basis of documents found without any segregation. Seized material also does not bear the name of either the appellant company or any other person. Here it is worthwhile to mention that when Shri Yashwant Sharma had made disclosure in ITR (peak theory basis) only in individual capacity not a single penny has been disclosed in the hand of Assessee Company. Even for the sake it is accepted that his disclosure in statement u/s 132(4) is without any segregation, then it is important to note that unaccounted transactions are purely business transactions. It should pertain only to any business concern. In individual capacity his theory of Proprietorship concern cannot be accepted. Hence, these transactions cannot pertain to Shri Yashwant Sharma rather pertains to his business concern i.c. assessee company. Further, any disclosure should have been examined under the light of real facts & evidence on record as admitted by Ld CIT(A) herself. The income has to be taxed in the right hand i.e. in whose hand it was taxable irrespective of admission made during search. Here as per material on record Shri Yashwant Sharma doesn't have any business concern in his individual capacity. Hence, income should be charged in the hand of assessee company. As far as observation of Ld CIT(A) that AO has not objected to the peak credit offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma, the Director of appellant company and return 23 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer of income of Director has been accepted by the same AO. The same income cannot be taxed twice is concern it is to mention here that AO had clearly objected the peak theory of Shri Yashwant Sharma and therefore made addition in the hand of assessee company as can be seen from the assessment order in the case of assessee company. Return of income has been accepted by AO in the case of Shri Yashwant Sharma in the assessment order in his case because as per settled position of law/ guidelines that assessed income cannot be less than returned income. Ld. CIT(A) had grossly erred on the facts & its finding and failed to appreciate the findings of AO made by him in assessment order. Inspite of the fact that Shri Yashwant Sharma was not involved in any business activity in his individual capacity as discussed here as well in assessment order, Ld CIT(A) relied upon the wrong facts without verification and accepted the peak offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma in individual capacity. LA CIT(A) had also grossly erred on the facts & its finding and failed to appreciate that even on the basis of peak theory any income had not been offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma in AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. It is also worthwhile to mention that even on the peak theory basis income had been offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma only in AY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2020-21. Any income had not been offered in AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Further, Id. CIT(A) also failed to appreciate the findings of AO that in the case of assessee company not only peak but entire unaccounted receipt should have been added. As per incriminating documents undisputedly evidence of unaccounted receipt as well as unaccounted payments both were found. AO had made addition to the extent of unaccounted receipt. Sine assess failed to get them verified, benefit of payments was not allowed to Assessee Company. Hence, theory of peak cannot be accepted. It is also worthwhile to mention that Assessee Company had not offered any peak in the hand of company, therefore question of peak doesn't arise in the case of company. AO had rightly made addition on the basis of entire unaccounted receipt. Ld CIT(A) had grossly erred on the facts & its finding and failed to appreciate the findings of AO made by him in assessment order. Ld CIT(A) had wrongly deleted the addition made by AO in assessment order on the basis of entire unaccounted receipt. 24 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Ld CIT(A) had also grossly erred on the facts & its finding and failed to appreciate that even on the basis of peak theory any income had not been offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma in AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 and Id CIT(A) wrongly deleted addition of AO even in AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019- 20. It is also worthwhile to mention that even on the peak theory basis income had been offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma only in AY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016- 17 and 2020-21. Any income had not been offered in AY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. i) In A.Y.2015-16 another addition related to excess rent expenses claimed was also made by the AO. On perusal of P & L A/c, it is found that an amount of Rs. 13,48,320/- was debited on account of rent paid to M/s Mahalaxmi machine tools, Ajmer whereas as per details available in Form No. 26AS, the payment made on account of Rent was only Rs. 12,00,000/-. Accordingly, excess claim of Rs. 1,48,320/- made on account of rent payment was also added to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur, has stated that the assessee company paid only Rs. 12,00,000/- on which TDS was deducted and balance amount is the Service Tax and Cess on which TDS has not been deducted in view of Circular No. 4/2008 dated 28.04.2008. Further, it has been mentioned in the Circular that TDS u/s 1941 of the Act, would be required to be made on the amount of Rent paid/payable without including the Service Tax. in view of aforesaid Circular, the ld. CIT (A)-2, Udaipur has opined that, the Service Tax paid by the Tenant does not partake the nature of "Income of the Landlord, who acts as a Collecting Agency for Government for collection of Service Tax only. Accordingly, deleted the addition. Ld CITIA) failed to appreciate the finding of AO made by him in assessment order. The decision of the Id. CIT (A-2), Udaipur were not found acceptable, as per discussion made above, material on record and findings of the AO mentioned in detail in the Assessment Order. Accordingly further appeal before Hon'ble ITAT was recommended in AY 2015-16 to 2020-21. However, in A.Y.2014-15 even though decision of CIT(A) was not accepted on merit but due to lower tax effect further appeal was not recommended as per CBDT guideline. Filing of appeal before ITAT: As per order of worthy Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur appeals were filed before ITAT for A.Y.2015-16 to 2020-21 on the grounds mentioned in the order of worthy PCIT. Said appeals were filed online as well as 25 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer offline subsequently. Alongwith the appeals Original Authorizations letters of PCIT (Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur, Form No.36, Orders of CIT(A), Form No.35, Assessment Orders, Grounds filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) were also submitted. Copy of the same were also provided to PCIT (Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur, Sr. DR, ITAT, Jaipur and JCIT, Central-Range, Udaipur. Paper Book: As desired in the letter of Id. CIT(DR)-1, ITAT, Jaipur dated 12.09.2022, the desired paper book includes this brief note, copies of relevant complete exhibits of seized papers part of which has been discussed in assessment order (Exhibit A-7 found from G-178, 179, RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer, Exhibit A-2 and Exhibit A- 3 found from F-187, 188 RIICO, Parbatpura, Ajmer) and relevant statements as discussed in assessment order (statements u/s 132(4) dated 15.02.2020 of Shri Yashwant Sharma and statement u/s 131 dated 15.02.2020 of Shri Aatma Ram Sharma). Original Authorizations letters of PCIT (Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur, Form No.36, Orders of CIT(A), Form No.35, Assessment Orders, Grounds filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) were already submitted alongwith appeals. Copies of the same were also already provided to Id. CIT(DR)-1, ITAT, Jaipur. However, in case any other document/file/details etc. are required, kindly intimate to this office.” 9. The ld. DR in addition to the written submission filed submitted that the income is required to be taxed in the correct hands which is supported by the seized material and statement of the persons recorded. Thus, relying on the seized material and statement recorded during the course of search he has vehemently argued that the addition made by the AO is not only factually correct but on the basis of the facts of the case in law also the same is required to be taxed in the hands of the company. As regards plea 26 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer of the assessee that the disclosure made in the search may be considered with respect to these papers is not correct as the same is not bifurcated and therefore, the same is separate and cannot be linked with this loose paper found and thus not covered by the disclosure made. The ld. DR submitted that the statement of Shri Atmaram Sharma, employee of the assessee in question no 11 stated that the documents saved in his phone are related to the assessee and Shri Yashwant Sharma and that the whatsapp chats, documents / data photo pertains to various parties and thus these are related to the assessee. Based on these arguments he supported the findings of the ld. AO for an amount of Rs. 3,98,12,270/-. As regards the addition of Rs. 3,35,33,211/- being the amount of receipts in cash generated out of books even the payment were made in cash but the credit of the same was not allowed considering the provision of section 40(A)(3). Based on these arguments he supported the order of the assessing officer and submitted that cash receipts are liable to be taxed. 10. Au contraire, the ld. AR submitted that the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order are not only correct on facts but are also legally bindings as such the same is considering after facts of the case and 27 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer revenue was also given fair chance and the proceeding before CIT(A) was represented by Mr. G. D. Sharma, DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer. Thus, there is no merits in the appeal filed by the revenue. The ld. AR has filed his written submission in this appeal of the revenue and the same is reiterated here in below : Reply in the case M/s Shri Bhagwati Machines Pvt Ltd Ajmer PAN AADCS1826L AY 2015-16 to AY 2020-21 Ground No 2 raised by the department is factually incorrect because during the appellate proceeding before learned CIT (A) 2 Udaipur a complete reply was submitted and in which the relevant annexures relating to the business of Sh. Yashwant Sharma was submitted and even the sales tax registration of the proprietorship firm of Sh. Yashwant Sharma was also submitted. In the order of the learned CIT (A) page no 3 the same was discussed. Even Sh. Atmaram Sharma during the course of statement on 15.02.2020 vide Q No 11 stated that the documents recovered from his mobile belongs to Sh. Yashwant Sharma etc. During the course of search, no documents recovered regarding out of books sales or purchase or any discrepancy in the stock of M/s Shri Bhagwati Machines Pvt Ltd. Further in the statement of Sh. Yashwant Sharma Q No 7 he answers he answer that he stated that the undisclosed income belongs to my company /firm /individual and I will deposit the tax on this income. Accordingly, he worked out the year wise undisclosed income and declared in the return filed in response to notice us 153A of the Income Tax Act. In the documents referred in the assessment order on which peak credit was worked out nowhere refers the name of the company and in none of the pages the name of the company is appearing. Without prejudice to above it is submitted that assesse himself has admitted the undisclosed income in his hands and never disputed the income then the same cannot be disturbed, if the assessee has not disclosed the income the position would have been different. Further the learned AO on dated 29.09.2021 issues a letter to explain the Exhibit No. 2 of B-10 and vide letter dated 30.09.2021/copy already submitted with the earlier reply) it was submitted that these annexure belongs to Sh. Yashwant Sharma he has given advances to different person on their booking the machines on Shri Bhaqwati Machines Pvt Ltd. and when they return it duly recorded in the diary along with the commission charged there on for this advance made and the learned AO was silent on this issue. 28 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Ground No 3 raised by department is against the principle of natural justice and decided law by the various judicial courts and hence on the peak credit can be taxed and in the case of Sh. Yashwant Sharma department itself has taxed the peak amount. Ground No 4 It is also incorrect to say that the in the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19, AY 2019-20 that Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Learned AO and Learned CIT (A) -2 Udaipur by which peak of every year was worked out and offered for taxation on the basis of the documents recovered during search. Even the Ld. DCIT Central Ajmer was also present during the appellate proceedings and he was fully satisfied with the peak worked out on the basis of documents recovered during search. During the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19, AY 2019-20 no peak was materialised and question of offering the peak amount during these period does not arise at all. In view of the above the appeal preferred by department may kindly be quashed.” 11. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the written submission submitted that the revenue has not challenged the working of the peak credit and the same is not only accepted in the case of Shri Yashwant Sharma but in the case of the assessee company working is not disputed. So, for that both the party have accepted the working of the peak calculated based on the loose paper found at the time of search. The ld. DR did not controvert these facts itself suggest that the peak income is correctly worked out. He further submitted that this peak credit has already been taxed in the hands of Shri Yashwant Sharma based on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein he has categorically submitted that the receipts and payments recorded are against the booking of Machinery 29 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer and that the alleged transactions are business transactions. He further submitted that Shri Yashwant Sharma nowhere in the statement stated that these transactions are with reference to the assessee company. He has stated that the cash advance is received on sale of machinery and that there are entries of cash payments as well, the summary of which has been mentioned on pages 45 to 59 of the Exhibit 2. In fact, on perusal of the statement of Shri Yashwant Sharma recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act in response to question no. 9 he has surrendered the undisclosed income of Rs. 6.10 crore on the basis of these documents found. As regards the statement of Shri Atamaram Sharma in response to question no. 12 he has explained that page no. 45 to 59 of Exhibit – 2 are the hand written noting of cash advances at Rs. 19,86,31,123/- and these entries pertains from 2014 to 2018. Thus, he has not specifically mentioned that these transactions are of the assessee. Not only that the when the income from the same loose paper is already offered and considered by the department in Shri Yashwant Sharma the same cannot be taxed in the hands of the company again, specifically when there is no dispute about the calculation of peak and income offered. The ld. AR submitted that on perusal of the questioned copy of the seized documents at Exhibit-2, it may be 30 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer appreciated that it does not contain the name of the assessee or any other person. It is merely a memoranda diary containing the details of payments received and paid. Based on these documents director Shri Yashwant Sharma offered year wise peak credit for taxation in his hands. Even penalty proceedings were also initiated against him for disclosure of this income in his return of income. The ld. AR further submitted that Shri Yashwant Sharma is running a proprietorship concern under the name & style M/s. Bhagwati Engineering and filling the income tax return regularly. This firm is also engaged in the resale of machinery, machinery parts and job work income so the offering of the income in his hands once taxed same income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Based on these arguments the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition of Rs. 3,98,12,270/- correctly deleted. As regards the addition of Rs. 3,35,33,211/- made on account of cash receipts on the same papers for which even the credit of the payments were not given considering the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition were made from the same page for which the peak credit is already considered on estimated basis as the same were not supported by books. Once the income is estimated based on peak the amount 31 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer received in cash cannot be separately added back in the case. Not only that the same can be considered in the hands of Shri Yashwant Sharma and not in the case of the assessee. Thus, the separate addition cannot be made once the income is estimated on peak theory. He has alternatively argued that once the disclosure made based on these loose papers are accepted in one hand the relevant cash receipt cannot be made in the other hands of the assessee. Thus, he relied the detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that once the disclosure made and the said income based on the detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A) is accepted in the hands of the Shri Yashwant Sharma the same income cannot be taxed twice in the hands of the assessee as well from the same loose paper. Thus, once the estimate of income is made in the hands of Shri Yashwant Sharma the relevant cash receipt cannot be made in the case of the assessee. Since, the revenue has already accepted this contention of the group same income again without controverting the fact cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee company. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that findings of the ld. CIT(A) on the fact that Shri Yashwant Sharma was running a firm is not challenged and now therefore, they cannot challenge that finding of the ld. CIT(A) at this stage. The ld. CIT(A) in the proceeding before him 32 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer given a fair chance to revenue substantiate their case as ld. AO [ Shri G D Sharma, DCIT Central Circle, Ajmer ] appeared in the appellate proceedings as per the first para of the order of the ld. CIT(A). As regards the ground no. 4 the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the contention of the revenue that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit is not correct. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A), the working of the peak is not disputed even by the AO when present in the proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) he was fully satisfied with the peak worked out on the basis of the documents recovered during the search then whether in one particular year income is arising or not cannot be a base of ground of appeal and that too on the same set of fact that the relevant income is already considered in the hands of Shri Yashwant Sharma. During the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 no peak was materialized and thus question of offering the peak amount during these period does not arise and this fact is accepted by the ld. AO before the ld. CIT(A). Even in the submission made in this appellate proceeding the ld. AO not commented on the working of the peak and thus this ground of the revenue has no merits. As regards the ground no. 5 of the revenue the ld. AR of the assessee relying 33 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer on the findings of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the alleged difference is on account of the service tax on rent and the service tax is not subjected to TDS as per circular no. 4/2008 dated 28.04.2008 this fact is not disputed and thus the said 5 th ground has also no merits. 12. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and also gone through the findings of the lower authorities recorded in their respective orders. The bench noted the ground no 1 & 6 raised by the revenue being general in nature therefore, the same is not require any adjudication. Apropos ground no 2 & 3 the bench note that the ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 3,98,12,270/- being the peak amount calculated based on the seized material and a sum of Rs. 3,35,33,211/- added on account of cash receipts and cash payment was also not considered on account of provision of section 40A(3) based on the seized material. On both these issues we have heard in detailed both the parties in detailed and also gone through the written submission and order of the lower authorities. The relevant facts in respect of the alleged dispute / addition made is that during the course of search proceedings, various loose papers, documents, digital data etc. were found. In the assessment 34 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer proceeding related to search it has been submitted that after taking into account all the incriminating documents found from the various premises [ business premises of the assessee as well as residential premises of the directors of the assessee ] prepared a memorandum cash book and offered year wise peak credit for taxation in the hands of the director Shri Yashwant Sharma. Shri Yashwant Sharma has disclosed the income and in his case revenue has accepted the peak of the said seized material which has been accepted as correct in his case as well as correct while making the addition in the hands of the assessee. So, the working of the peak is not disputed by the AO in his order, in the case of Shri Yashwant Sharma and in the proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee. Relying on the loose paper and statement of the employee the ld. AO contended that even though the peak credit is offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma the same is also required to be taxed in the hands of the assessee so he added the peak of Rs. 3,98,12,270/- he also added a sum of Rs. 3,35,33,211/- being the cash receipt u/s. 68 of the same seized material and has not allowed the payment made as appearing in the said seized material on account of the provision of section 40A(3) that the payment were made in cash and thus only the receipt was added. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted both these 35 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer additions giving a detailed findings as extracted here in above paras. The ld. DR did not controvert the findings of facts as appearing from the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the non-controverted facts are as under: a) The loose papers/seized material are related to the booking of machinery. b) The loose paper specifically did not mention the name of the assessee firm. Merely the same is found from the premises of the company cannot be prima facie considered as belonging to the assessee company, when the director of the company already running a proprietary concern in the name and style as M/s. Bhagwati Engineering. This fact is accepted and not controverted. The firm is also engaged in the business of resale of machinery, sale of parts and job work. c) The ld. AO has not pinpointed that which of the specific transaction of the company recorded in that material is not recorded in the books. d) The working out of the peak is not in dispute. e) The peak as worked out and agreed has already been taxed in the hands of the director of the assessee Shri Yashwant Sharma and the same is also not in dispute. 36 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer f) Based on the offering of the income by Shri Yashwant Sharma penalty was levied in the year 2014-15 where in the relevant income was offered. g) How can the same income can be taxed twice which is arising from the same seized material. h) Shri Yashwant Sharma has accepted this transaction and while recording the statement u/s. 132(4) no where it is stated by him that these transaction are related to the assessee. i) In the seized material there is cash receipt as well as cash payment also so the working out of the peak is also not in dispute. j) In the group cases income of Rs. 6.10 crore disclosed based on the documents found. k) In the statement of employee Shri Atamaram Sharma he has stated that the documents saved in his phone are related to the assessee and Shri Yashwant Sharma thus, he has not specifically confirmed that the same is related to whom. l) The seized material is merely a memoranda diary containing the payments received and paid and it does not contain the details of the firm to whom it belongs. 37 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer m) Once the group assessee accepted the seized material and offered the income for taxation then the ld. AO cannot make addition for all the related assessee once again because the same income cannot be taxed twice. n) Exhibit A-7 are the salary sheets of the assessee company, Exihibit 2 & 3 were duly accounted for in the memoranda cash book based upon which the peak is derived. o) The AO has not placed any contrary facts to counter the contentions placed by Shri Yashwant Sharma about offering income based on material and working out of the peak. p) Based on the entries recorded in these paper AO has not pointed any single entry reflected in the books so as it establishes that this seized material is only belonging to the assessee and not of Shri Yashwant Sharma. In fact, the AO himself stated that these payments are not verifiable from the books of the assessee rather he failed to prove that these transactions are related to the assessee company. 13. Thus, based on above controverted findings of the facts as it evident from the detailed order of the ld. CIT(A) and as argued by the ld. AR of the assessee. The same arguments are well taken note in the detailed findings 38 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer of the ld. CIT(A). The fact that the peak calculated and offered by Shri Yashwant Sharam is derived from the same seized material which the ld. AO has made in this case. In fact, the ld. AO has made the addition of the same amount of peak which has been calculated and offered by Shri Yashwant Sharma without bringing any contrary findings. The ld. DR did not controvert these finding of facts by the ld. CIT(A) except the fact that the income is of the assessee company this argument is merely based on the statement of the employee of the assessee. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere in the reasoned findings given by the ld. CIT(A) as revenue did not controvert any of the factual aspect related to the detailed findings of facts of ld. CIT(A) as detailed in his order. Moreover, we also concur the view of the ld. CIT(A) that the same income cannot be taxed twice in the case of Shri Yashwant Sharma and in the case of assessee. We also support the view that once the cash receipt is already considered while working out the peak the same income cannot be taxed u/s. 68 as receipt. Therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) could not be found fault with and therefore, we see no reason to intervene in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Based on these facts we hold the view of the ld. CIT(A) as correct and appeal of the revenue on ground no 2 & 3 is dismissed. 39 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer 14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) which is not disputed even by the AO when he was present in the proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) he was fully satisfied with the peak worked out on the basis of the documents recovered during the search. During the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 no peak was materialized and thus question of offering the peak amount during these period does not arise and this fact is accepted by the ld. AO before the ld. CIT(A). Even in the submission made in this appellate proceeding the ld. AO not commented on the working of the peak. Not only that once a view has already been taken and accepted that the seized material is not related to the assessee and when the calculation of the peak is already accepted in case of Shri Yashwant Sharma whether the peak is taxable in particular year cannot be ground that can be considered in the light of the facts discussed here in above we see no merits on this ground no 4 of the revenue and the same is also stands dismissed. 40 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer 15. The ground no. 5 raised in this appeal is related to the addition of Rs. 1,48,320/-. The related fact is that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 13,48,320/- on account of factory rent paid to M/s. Mahalaxmi Machine Tools, Ajmer. The AO observed that a payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- only was made and TDS was also deducted on the same amount only and therefore, the difference of Rs. 1,48,320/- was disallowed as excess claim. In this regard the assessee explained that Rs. 1,48,320/- is comprising of the service tax @ 12.36 [ 12 % service tax plus 3 % cess on it ] and on that service tax part the TDS is not required to be deducted therefore, the same was explained before ld. CIT(A) and the same was allowed. Before us, the ld. DR did not controvert this finding of facts and has merely relied upon the finding of the ld. AO. We have considered the facts on the issue and we concur the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue as the assessee is not required to deduct the TDS on service tax portion and therefore, the TDS was deducted after reducing the service tax portion which is permitted by CBDT circular no. 4/2008 dated 28.04.2008. Thus, we do not see merits in the ground raised by the revenue and thus, the said ground no. 5 is also stands dismissed. 41 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer 16. In the result the revenue appeal in ITA No. 296/JPR/2022 stands dismissed. 17. Now, we take up the cross objection filed by the assessee effectively there are six grounds in cross objections raised by the assessee. 18. The cross objection ground no. 1 & 2 is related to invoking of provision of section 68 & 115BBE of the I.T. Act, as the addition has already been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) the same was not decided by the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 4 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on merits therefore, these ground No. 1 , 2 & 4 being technical are infructuous and does not require any adjudication. As regards ground no. 5 related to charging of interest u/s. 234B which is consequential in nature for which AO is directed to give the necessary effect as per law. Ground no. 6 is related to levy of the penalty and the levy of penalty is not subject matter of challenge before us. Therefore, the same is premature which does not require adjudication. 42 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer 19. The only ground no. 3 which is related to the issue of the show cause not being given while making the addition for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed submission the same is extracted here in below ; “That the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is absolutely non speaking and passed making huge additions without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of being heard on these points, in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Ld CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in stating that this ground has been redressed by her during appellate proceeding and therefore, the order passed by the ld. AO is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. No show cause notice was issued by Ld AO on the points he made additions and recently It has been held by honourable ITAT Ahemdabad in ITO Ward-1(2) (3), Ahmedabad v/s Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K.International, House No. 314, Bai tul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellis bridge, Ahmedabad-380006 I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 on dated 31.05.2022 held as under : 10.2 During the course of assessment, assessing officer had issued show cause notice on 07/12/2016 proposing addition of Rs. 1.25 crores u/s 40A(3) which has been perused. The issue of show cause notice has been mandated in income tax in accordance with the principle of natural justice. In recent instruction no. 20/2015 dated 29th December 2015 issued by CBDT pertaining to assessment it has been clearly mentioned that the Board desires that "in all cases under scrutiny, where the Assessing Officer proposes to make additions or disallowances, the assessee would be given a fair opportunity to explain his position on the proposed additions/disallowances in accordance with the principle of natural justice. In this regard, the Assessing Officer shall issue an appropriate show cause notice duly indicating the reasons for the proposed additions/disallowances along with necessary evidences/reasons forming the basis of the same." However, on perusal of the show cause notice, addition proposed has been Rs. 1.25 crores whereas in the assessment order, Assessing officer has made addition of Rs.4.625 crores therefore contended to be against the principles of natural justice. Further, Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT,TPO[2010] W.P. (C) 6876 OF 2008, has opined that non-issue of proper show-cause notice can be fatal to the proceedings under he Income-tax Act, 1961 Also, Hon.Apex court in case of Uma Nath Pandey v. State of UP AIR 2009 SC 2375, inter alia, observed as under: 43 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer 'Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him' Thus, in the present case, it is argued that assessing officer has clearly failed in issuing appropriate show cause notice and has clearly vitiated principles of natural justice by making addition of Rs. 4.625 crore as against Rs. 1.25 crores as stated in the show cause notice. The appellant is of the opinion as to how the initial amount as stated in show cause notice of Rs. 1.25 crore was derived and how the same went up to Rs. 4.625 crores, is not apparent from assessment order. The contention raised by the appellant found to be correct." In view of above addition made by Ld AO deserves to be deleted.” 20. Since, the disputed addition has already been allowed by the ld. CIT(A) and we have also concurred with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on merits, therefore, this ground is also technical and educative in nature which need not require adjudication. 21. In terms of these observations the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in CO No. 17/JPR/2022. 22. As the facts of cross objections in CO/17/JPR/2022 is similar to the facts of the cross objections in CO No. 18 to 22/JPR/2022 and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. 44 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in these cross objections in Co No. 17/JPR/2022 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts and various grounds raised by the assessee. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in CO no.17/JPR/2022 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the co no. 18 to 22/JPR/2022. In the results cross objections of the assessee in CO no. 17 to 22/JPR/2022 allowed for statistical purpose. 23. The fact of the case in ITA No. 296/JPR/2022 is similar to the case in ITA No. 297 to 301/JPR/2022 and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the revenue in this appeal No. 296/JPR/2022 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds except that in one ground of TDS is there in ITA No. 296 is not in other appeals. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts and various grounds raised by revenue. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in ITA No. 296/JPR/2022 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the ITA No. 297 45 ITA Nos. 296 to 301/JP/2022 & CO No. 17 & 22/JP2022 DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/s Shree Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer to 301/JPR/2022. In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no. 296 to 301/JPR/2022 stands dismissed. In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/10/2022. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10/10/2022 *Ganesh Kumar vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Ms Shri Bhagwati Machine Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos.296 to 301 /JP/2022 and CO No. 17 to 22/JP/2020) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar