HARJIT SINGH SAHNI,NOIDA V. DCIT, CC, GHAZIABAD

ITA 1133/DEL/2021

AI Insights

This case involves cross appeals by the Revenue and the assessee, Harjeet Singh Sahni, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4. The appeals arose from an assessment order passed under sections 143(3) and 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation at the assessee's premises. The primary issues in the appeals included the addition of unexplained unsecured loans, concealment of income, and unexplained investments. The Tribunal found that the additions were not substantiated by incriminating material directly linked to the assessee and that the procedural requirements for assessment under section 153A were not met.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23765 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYAINDER SINGH SIDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA; SAKSHAM AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Salary income; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Assessment record; Time period of passing order
• Section: 201; 143(1); 132; 153A; 68; 69; 13; 153C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1323/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad. Vs Harjeet Singh Sahni, 4, ATS Village Green, Sector-93A, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201 305. PAN: AAWPS4765J ITA No.1133/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Harjeet Singh Sahni, 4, ATS Village Green, Sector-93A, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201 305. PAN: AAWPS4765J Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Saksham Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are cross appeals preferred by the Revenue and the assessee against the order dated 12.07.2021 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 2 ‘FAA’) in Appeals No.CIT(A)-IV/KNP/10686/2018-19 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 27.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from business and profession, salary, house property and income from other sources. The original return was filed by the assessee on 09.03.2010 at an income of Rs.1,36,94,410/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 03.11.2016 at the premises of the assessee comprising M/s VVIP and SSG group of cases and later the case of the assessee was centralized to DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad. The assessee filed return of income u/s 153A of the Act at the income in the return originally filed. The Ld. AO has made addition of alleged unexplained unsecured loans amounting to Rs.9,69,47,724/-; addition on account of alleged concealment of income amounting to Rs.62,71,749/-; and addition on account of alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,30,01,748/-. The assessee had partly succeeded before the ld.CIT(A) for which the Revenue and the assessee both are in appeal and the grounds of the respective appeals are reproduced below:- 2.1 Grounds raised by the Revenue:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO to the tune of Rs. 62,71,749/- on ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 3 account of difference of incriminating documents extracted from the Hard Disc seized from the premise of the assessee and the income declared by the assessee in return of income. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO to the tune of Rs. 9,67,67,724/- on account of unsecured loans declared on the documents extracted from the Hard Disc seized from the premise of the assessee and the assessee failed to substantiate the loans with documentary evidences during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to allude to the relevant facts & circumstances and misread the facts to arrive at the conclusion. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2.2 Grounds raised by the Assessee:- “1. That the proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Act for the year had been completed earlier. The order passed by the Ld AO is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search and thus the additions so made are bad in law and against the principles laid down in various judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 2. That the order passed under Section 153A of the Act is bad in law as the approval of the L.D Additional CIT was taken in haste, at the last date and from the records it would be clear that the approval has been made in a mechanical manner as with the number of orders approved on the last days could not be by application of mind and as per law the approval has to be done by application of mind. Thus the compliance of section 153D has not been made in a proper way and so the order is bad in law and required to be quashed. 3. That the L.D CIT (A)-IV Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in sustaining an addition which was made on the basis of a loose paper seized during the course of Search from the premises of some VVIP group, wherefrom it was inferred that the appellant has given on-money amounting to Rs 1,30,01,748.00 for purchase of some flats of such VVIP Group. 4. That the L.D CIT (A)-IV Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition even when the document/loose paper was not seized/found from the premises of the appellant and therefore the pre- assumption of Section 292C do not apply to the assessee. ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 4 5. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition even though the addition was made without allowing an opportunity to the appellant to cross verify the acceptance made by the CMD of the VVIP group. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition amounting to Rs 1,30,01,748.00 even when the statement given by the CMD of the VVIP group was retracted by him. 7. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in rejecting the appellant's appeal as regards the addition amounting to Rs 1,30,01,748.00 without considering the fact that even during the course of search not even an iota of evidence has been found wherefrom it could be stated that the appellant had made any cash payment. 8. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in rejecting the appellant's appeal as regards the addition amounting to Rs 1,30,01,748.00 without considering the fact that the payment of Rs 6.00 lakhs made by the appellant has been forfeited by the VVIP group and had the appellant paid \"Cash\" over and above the payment by bank transfer the \"Unit/property\" would have been allotted to him. 9. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in rejecting the appellant's appeal as regards the addition amounting to Rs 1,30,01,748.00 without considering the fact that the Property/Unit against which an addition has been made to the Income of the Appellant was allotted to some other party and is Registered in some other person's name. 10. That the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law, principals of natural justice and equity. 11. That the appellant craves liberty to add, alter or vary any ground of appeal either at the time of hearing of the appeal or before the disposal of the appeal before the Hon’ble Bench.” 3. The facts of the appellants case as regards the addition of account of alleged unexplained investment amounting to Rs 1,30,01,748.00 are that the Ld. A.O has stated that it has come to his notice that payment of Rs. 1,30,01,748/ has been made in cash by the appellant for purchase of immovable property built by V.V Infrahome Pvt Ltd. The ld. A.O has stated that Mr Praveen Tyagi ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 5 CMD has accepted that cash money was ‘on money’ and he has accepted the same for taxation. In view of the above alleged cash payment the ld. A.O added the above amount as alleged unexplained cash under section 69 of the Act. 3.1 The case of assessee is that he has booked just one flat No 1-601 in Block I , 6th Floor of project by VVIP group at NH-58 Ghaziabad built by V.V Infrahome Pvt Ltd. and gave an advance of Rs 6,00,000.00 during the F.Y 2011-2012 for purchase of that Flat. The total sale consideration fixed for the purchase of flat was Rs 63,62,368.00. The assessee gave an advance of Rs 6,00,000.00 and after which no payment was made by the appellant and owing to the same the advance given by the appellant was forfeited and the said unit \"Flat No 1-601, 6th Floor\" was allotted by the VVIP group to some other customer, which can be confirmed by the concerned group. No cash payment was made. Ld. Counsel has submitted that during the course of search not even a single document/incriminating material has been found or seized wherefrom it could be stated that the appellant has made any unexplained cash payment to M/s VV Infrahome Pvt Ltd. Even if some documents are found at the premises of VV Infra or there has been any statement recorded by their directors etc. the same is not binding or in no way proves that the appellant had given certain ‘on money’. Even otherwise the Ld. A.O relied on some acceptance made by a third party regarding cash given by the appellant, without any corroborative evidence found with the appellant which is unjust and not reliable and any evidence at the ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 6 back of the appellant has no evidentiary value. Further it is submitted that Agreement for purchase of immovable property was for a sale consideration of Rs 63,62,368.00 and had alleged cash been paid by the appellant then why the appellant paid just Rs 6 lacs and the deal was cancelled. Had the appellant paid such an amount the flat would have been purchased by the appellant. 4. The facts with regard to next issue of addition of Rs. 62,71,749/- are that during the course of search at the premises of M/s SSG Infratech Pvt Ltd a hard disk was seized wherefrom a personal balance sheet and profit & loss account of Shri Harjit Sahni was extracted for the F.Y 2015-2016 i.e., A.Y 2016- 2017. 4.1 The case of ld. AO is that assessee has submitted his return at an income of Rs 1,36,94,110/- whereas as per the abstract of profit & loss account taken as a print out from the hard disk the appellant has an income of Rs.1,99,66,159/- and therefore the differential income of Rs 62,71,749/- is being added to the income of the appellant as concealed income. Ld. Counsel has submitted that as regards the same the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings had explained that the said profit & loss account was incomplete and unaudited/ unreconciled and not final as regards the income, expenses, assets and liabilities of the appellant and several entries were still pending to be passed. Further the appellant is not legally liable to maintain books of accounts and balance sheet and profit & loss account and the entries in the tally data have been made only for ease and convenience of appellant. ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 7 4.2 At the same time without prejudice to the above even otherwise all the income as appearing in the said profit & loss account, has been duly considered by the appellant in the return of income filed by the appellant for the relevant year. The rental income as appearing in the said profit & loss account has been duly taken as Income from House Property in the return of income filed by the appellant. The \"Bank Interest\" income as appearing in the said profit & loss account has been duly taken as Income from Other sources in the return of income filed by the appellant. The \"Income From other Sources\" income as appearing in the said profit & loss account has been duly taken as Income from Other sources in the return of income filed by the appellant. The \"Income from salaries\" as appearing in the said profit & loss account has been duly taken as \"Income From Salary\" in the return of income filed by the appellant. The Return and Computation of income were already filed before the ld. A.O and the exemptions/expenses claimed against the income contained in the computation of income were never challenged by the Ld. AO. The Interest expenses claimed against the Income from house Property were never challenged and duly accepted by the Ld. AO. The ld. AO without application of mind, without going into the facts of the case and ignoring the \"Computation of Income\" filed by the appellant, completed the assessment in haste. The ld. AO in his assessment order thus made double additions to the income of the appellant i.e all the incomes had been duly considered and then still added again stating the same to be the difference. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the ld. AO in his assessment ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 8 order failed to rebut the contention of the appellant and passed an order ignoring the facts and reply filed by the appellant. 5. The next addition relates to an addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs.9.69,47,724/-. The facts relevant same are that alleged unexplained unsecured loans amounting to Rs 9,69,47,724 were added. The case of ld. AO is that during the course of search at the premises of M/s SSG Ingratech Pvt Ltd a hard disk was seized wherefrom a personal balance sheet and profit & loss account of Shri Harjit Sahni was extracted for the F.Y 2015-2016 ie A.Y 2016- 2017. 5.1 The case of assessee is that the said personal balance sheet and profit & loss account extracted from the hard disk did not contained complete entries relating to the bank accounts of the appellant and even as regards the income of the appellant. Further as per law the appellant is also not liable to maintain or produce any regular books of accounts including balance sheet and the profit & loss account as he does not have any income from business or profession. The said incomplete balance sheet extracted from the hard disk seized in the case of the appellant stated \"Unsecured Loans\" outstanding to the tune of Rs 9,69,47,794.44/-. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings explained that the figures of Unsecured Loan as appearing to be outstanding in the Balance Sheet are not correct as several entries are still pending to be passed. The ld. AO has made an addition under section 68 of the Act as ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 9 unexplained credits but has not mentioned as to in which bank or as to where in the books of the appellant and on which date such sums have been credited. 5.2 Further ld. Counsel has submitted that on without prejudice basis that the data was incomplete and only a memoranda and not any final data, (as the appellant is not required to maintain any books of accounts) an amount of unsecured Loan totaling to Rs 9,69,47,794.44 seems to be sum total of gross loans from the following parties, whether opening or received during the year, without deducting any repayments thereof. S.No Name Amount 1. Avatar Singh 14,11,500.00 2. Gurdeep Singh 2,50,000.00 3. Jaspreet Singh 14,11,500.00 4. Kawarjeet Singh 17,00,000.00 5. Manak Developers 30,00,000.00 6. Nitishree Infrastructure Pvt Ltd 1,75,00,000.00 7. OPC Aquatech Pvt Ltd 42,00,000.00 8. PPS Buildtech Pvt Ltd 1,40,80,000.00 9. Preeti Sahni 50,000.00 10. S.S.G Infratech Pvt Ltd 4,71,64,724.52 11. Vibhore Vaibhav Infra Pvt Ltd 60,00,000.00 5.3 It is further stated that out of all the above loans no loans other than loan from M/s SSG Infratech Pvt Ltd were received during the year under appeal. The loans which were received in earlier years and were carried forwarded to the year under appeal had been duly confirmed by the parties. The appellant is in possession of the relevant documents so as to justify the identity, credit worthiness and the genuineness of the transaction, but no such opportunity was granted to the appellant. The appellant during the course of assessment ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 10 proceedings furnished a reply explaining the above and submitted the account confirmations and other necessary evidences from the parties appearing as Unsecured Loan but the same was not accepted by the ld. AO stating that the assessment records have been sent to the office of the Joint Commissioner for approval. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessment proceedings in the case of the appellant were undertaken at the fag end of the limitation period and the reply submitted by the appellant was not accepted. 5.4 It was further submitted that the amount of Rs 4,71,64,724/- as appearing to be outstanding from M/s SSG Infratech Pvt Ltd is also not correct as the same has been repaid by the appellant during the year under appeal and no amount is outstanding as at the year end, the fact of which may be verified from the case records which are also with the Ld AO. 6. On hearing rival contentions and on perusal of material before us and taking up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1133/Del/2021, we find that primarily the assessee now contest grounds No.1 and 3 to 9 which cumulatively question the sustenance of an amount of Rs.1,30,01,748/- by the ld.CIT(A) which was allegedly ‘on money’ given by the assessee. 6.1 In this context, at the outset the ld. AR has submitted that primarily the assessment was concluded u/s 153A of the Act which itself is not sustainable as the alleged document relied was seized from the resicence of Mr. Praveen Tyagi, CMD of VVIP group. It was submitted that since it is a document found ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 11 during the search of Mr. Praveen Tyagi, CMD of VVIP group, and has no concern with the business activities of the assessee being part of M/s VVIP and SSG group and the addition is made in the personal capacity of the assessee, the addition should have been made u/s 153C of the Act. 6.2 This has been countered by the ld. DR submitting that the nature of transaction has been examined by the ld.CIT(A) and it is observed that a loan of Rs.60 lakhs was received from VVIP by the assessee and this shows that VVIP had some relationship with the assessee and, therefore, assessment was correctly concluded u/s 153A of the Act as part of the search of VVIP group. It was also submitted by the ld. DR that otherwise also the assessee has not assailed the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A by way of any specific ground. 6.3 The ld. counsel for the assessee has countered the same by submitting that the ground as raised by the assessee alleging that no document/incriminating material found during the search of the assessee has been relied covers this assertion of the assessee that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act is vitiated. 7. We consider it appropriate to decide this aspect first as it goes to the root of the grounds pressed by the assessee in its appeal. In this context, we find that no specific ground in that regard was taken before the ld.CIT(A) and before this Tribunal also no specific ground has been raised. However, the ground No.1, 3 ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 12 and 4 though questions the disputed addition on the fact that the assessee claims that incriminating material found was not found in his search and, therefore, could not have been relied by presumption u/s 292C and also for not giving opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the CMD of VVIP group, they very much withhold in their scope the question of assumption of jurisdiction and conclusion of assessment u/s 153A of the Act, which can thus be examined. 7.1 Even otherwise, by virtue of Rule 11 and Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, this Tribunal has wide powers to render substantive justice to the party before it and the constructive reading of section 254(1) of the Act and Rule 11 of the Rules make it amply clear that the Tribunal is competent to consider any ground or issue not taken by either of the parties if the same is found relevant to decide the appeal pending before it and the Hon’ble Gauwahati High Court judgement in the case of Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 133 Taxman 159 (Gau) and the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Sawhney Vs. Pr. CIT [2020] 116 Taxmann.com 701 (Del) can be relied wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the assessee as respondent has the right to raise jurisdictional ground under Rule 27 orally. The relevant part of same is reproduced below; “14. It emerges that Rule 27 ought not to be applied narrowly and therefore we cannot agree with Mr. Hossain, that by permitting the Appellant- Assessee (respondent before the Tribunal) to invoke Rule 27 before the Tribunal, to challenge the ground decided against him, scope of the subject matter of appeal would get expanded. We must also bear in mind that jurisdictional issue sought to be urged by the appellant under Rule 27 is interlinked with the other grounds of appeal, and its adjudication ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 13 would have a direct impact on the outcome of the appeal. The validity of the proceedings goes into the root of the matter and for this reason, the assessee should not be precluded from raising a challenge to that part of the order which was decided against him by the CIT(A). In this regard, it would be profitable to refer the following extract from the judgment of Sundaram & Co.(supra),where the court had also examined as to what constituted 'subject-matter of an appeal' and held as follows: \"14. Learned counsel for the department contends that it would not be open to a respondent to travel outside the scope of the subject-matter of the appeal under the guise of invoking rule 27. This contention is unexceptionable and we do not think that the learned counsel for the assessee disputed it. But then, what is the subject-matter of an appeal? The answer is simple. The subject-matter is that which the Tribunal or the appellate court is called upon to decide and to adjudicate. The subject- matter cannot be identified with the grounds raised either by the appellant or bythe respondent. In the present case the subject- matter of the appeal before the Tribunal was the reduction of tax rebate in respect of Rs. 3,54,716. It is impossible to contend that the subject-matter of the appeal lay within a narrower limit and that it was the question whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in not allowing reduction of rebate on the ground mentioned by him. The assessee had obtained relief before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to a particular extent. And this was objected to by the department in the appeal before the Tribunal. The applicability of section 34 of the Act was a general question raised by the assessee even before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot be said that it became debarred from raising the question over again before the Tribunal because of the fact that it did not choose to file an appeal against other portions of the order of the Assistant Commissioner which was unfavourable to it. The scope of section 34 was a ground which was decided against the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and we do not see how the assessee is precluded from relying upon rule 27 and urging that ground before the Tribunal with a view to support only that portion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order which was favourable to it.” 7.2 Thus, where both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before us, certainly, this Tribunal can enter into the question of valid assumption of jurisdiction which is a legal question and can be conveniently decided on the basis of the admitted facts available on record. ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 14 8. Now, admittedly, this document which was relied for making the addition of Rs.1,30,01,748/- was found in the search of residence of Mr. Praveen Tyagi, CMD of VVIP group. There is nothing on record to show that the assessee has any stake in VVIP group. Rather, as per the impugned order, the assessee has taken an unsecured loan from VVIP group. Admittedly, the search were under separate warrants qua Mr. Praveen Tyagi, CMD of VVIP group and Mr. Harjeet Singh Sahni independently for search of his residential premises. The disputed addition is with regard to a personal booking of flat of the present assessee. The nature of transaction giving rise to disputed addition is not one which arises out of any business operations of the assessee which have connection with the business operations of the VVIP group. The ld. AO has merely relied the statement of Mr. Praveen Tyagi and the fact that he had surrendered this amount of on money for taxation. On appreciation of the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A), we find that to sustain the addition, the ld.CIT(A) has taken into consideration the impugned incriminating document which had certain details of the cheques given by the assessee and correlated them with the evidence of the assessee to hold that these evidences match and, thus, the information of seized document can be relied. 9. The aforesaid discussion sufficiently establishes that although out of the search conducted on 03.11.2016 the addition has been made. However, the alleged incriminating material was not found in the search of the assessee, but, ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 15 was found in the search of an independent and altogether distinct taxable entity and the admissions of that taxable entity if were to be relied qua the assessee, then, the assessments should have been on the basis of the satisfactions recorded for the purpose of section 153C of the Act. Thus, on this ground alone the impugned additions deserves to be quashed. There was certainly illegality in invoking the provisions of section 292C of the Act qua this disputed document found at the residence of Mr. Praveen Tyagi and to conclude assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 10. Even otherwise we are of the considered view that when the assessee had brought on record evidence which establish that the amount which was paid as advance was forfeited by the concerned builder and the unit qua which this amount was allegedly paid stands allotted and sold to another person, then, it is quite unreasonable to draw a presumption that apart from the amount paid by way of cheque of Rs.6 lakhs the assessee would have paid an ‘on money’ for which addition was made. We find substance in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the addition has been made on the basis of a burden on the assessee to prove a negative and the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) both have drawn adverse inferences on the statement and conduct of Mr. Praveen Tyagi to make the addition without giving opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine Mr. Praveen Tyagi. The contention of the ld. DR to support the observations of the ld.CIT(A) that opportunity to cross-examine was not sought specifically and ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 16 otherwise relevant materials was shown to the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings do not advance the cause of justice to hold that separate opportunity of cross-examination is not required to be given. In a case where a liability is being created merely on the basis of statement and conduct of another taxable entity, then, by citing the relevant material to the present assessee is not sufficient. Indeed, cross-examination is not an absolute right, but, where before the ld.CIT(A) a specific ground has been raised of not providing opportunity of cross-examination of material witness and the ld. CIT(A) proceeds to call for a remand report, then, certainly, the tax authorities below could have come forward and offered their sole witness for cross-examination. Certainly, that would have given the assessee an opportunity to put across the case that the flat in regard to which the alleged ‘on money’ payment was made stands cancelled and even the advance amount stands forfeited. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, not only on the legal aspect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A, but, otherwise on merits too, we are not inclined to sustain the addition. The grounds No.1 and 3 to 9 as raised by the assessee in its appeal are allowed. 11. In regard to the grounds of appeal of the Revenue, after going through the impugned order, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has primarily benefitted the assessee on the basis of the remand report wherein the ld. AO himself was satisfied with the evidences of the assessee. Now, only because during assessment ITA No.1323/Del/2021 ITA No.1133/Del/2021 17 proceedings the assessee had not provided these evidences in remand report the AO had objected for admission of same, that cannot be the basis for sustaining the addition and, accordingly, the additions deleted by the ld.CIT(A) require no indulgence. The grounds of the Revenue have no substance. 12. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed. The impugned assessment is quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26th March, 2025. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "