LATE SUNIL D GULATI, MUMBAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39, MUMBAI

ITA 2091/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the legal heir of the late Sunil D. Gulati against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The appeals addressed multiple issues, including the addition of unexplained expenditures related to credit card expenses, current liabilities, unsecured loans, and disallowances of interest and donations. The ITAT examined the nature of the transactions, the role of the assessee as a broker in real estate deals, and the adequacy of the explanations and evidence provided for the financial dealings. The Tribunal's decision involved a detailed analysis of the legal provisions under sections 68 and 69 of the Income Tax Act, and the principles of taxation concerning unexplained cash credits and expenditures.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123646 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2022
• Other Referred Cases: All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyarilal Jain, CIT(Central), Kanpur vs. M/s Ghanshyam Das Johri, CIT vs. Kailash Chnad Sharma, Smt Neena Syal vs. ACIT, Mrs Nawaz Singhania vs. DCIT Central Circle
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove; Set aside
• Section: 68; 6; 132; 154; 69C; 40A(3); 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 133(6); 80G; 250; 64; 43; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2091/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & ITA No. 2092/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Park Behind Elco Market, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050. Vs. CIT-Central Circle 39, Room No. 1924, 19 th floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AEHPG 8703 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Hitesh Shah, AR Revenue by : Mr. Manish Ajudiya, DR Date of Hearing : 24/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 02/02/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the deceased assessee through legal heir are directed against two separate orders, both dated 28/07/2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of income-tax(Appeals)-54[in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’]for assessment year 20 from the two separate 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act raised in both the appeals and circumstances, hence both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of thi and avoid repetition of facts. 2. Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008 The grounds raised by the assessee as under: “GROUND I:- On the facts and in the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter fan referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.1,31,495/ expenditure us. 69 in respect of the credit cards expe alleged as unverifiable The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure us. 69 to the extent of Rs. 1,31,495/ and illegal be deleted." GROUND II:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009 two separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. r.w.s 153A of the Act, both on 29/12/201 raised in both the appeals are permeating from same set of facts and circumstances, hence both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008 The grounds raised by the assessee for AY 2008-09 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI (hereinafter fan referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.1,31,495/- as unexplained expenditure us. 69 in respect of the credit cards expe alleged as unverifiable The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure us. 69 to the extent of Rs. 1,31,495/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted." - ts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 2 and 2009-10, arising Assessing Officer u/s. /2011. The issues permeating from same set of facts and circumstances, hence both the appeals were heard together s consolidated order for convenience Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09. 09 are reproduced circumstances of the case, the 54, MUMBAI (hereinafter fan referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in as unexplained expenditure us. 69 in respect of the credit cards expenses The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure us. 69 to the extent of being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law ts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans taken in the name of Rakesh Survey Rs 8,80,000/ Mukund Associates Rs 35,00,000/ 43,80,000/-a The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs 43,80,000/- illegal be deleted GROUND III- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 61,309/- expenses. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the disallowance made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 61,309/ unwarranted, bad in law and illegal bedeleted. GROUND IV: On the facts and Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1)(iii) to the extent of Rs. 16,19,127/ purposes. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 account of current liabilities and unsecured loans taken in the name of Rakesh Survey Rs 8,80,000/- Mukund Associates Rs 35,00,000/- aggregating to Rs. as unexplained cash credit for u/s. 68 of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of - made on account of personal element in certain The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the disallowance made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 61,309/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal bedeleted. GROUND IV: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1)(iii) to the extent of Rs. 16,19,127/- alleging it being not for the business Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 3 account of current liabilities and unsecured loans taken in and Shree aggregating to Rs. s. 68 of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of made on account of personal element in certain The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the disallowance made on account of estimated personal element in certain being unjustified, in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1)(iii) to the extent alleging it being not for the business The appellant being aggri on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1) (ii) to the extent of Rs. 16,19, 127/ bad in law and illegal be deleted 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration 139(1) of the Act. Duri had acted as real estate agent engaged in purchase and sale of land and was mainly dealing scheme of CIDCO for allotment of 12.5 % area of land acquired business was carried out as a proprietary business in his personal name. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, “the Act”] was conducted Madan S. Kolambekar search u/s. 132 of the Act was also carried out in the case of assessee on 18.02.2009. Consequent to the search and seizure action, notice u/s. 153A of the Act dated 12.10 and served on the assessee asking to file the return of income. In response, the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2008 on 26.02.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 4,50,960/ statutory notices under the Act were assessee. In the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) the Act, the Assessing Officer determined total income at Rs. 12,93,49,967/- after declared in the return of income by th ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1) (ii) to the extent of Rs. 16,19, 127/-being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. riefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee return of income for the year under consideration During the year under consideration real estate agent engaged in purchase and sale of land mainly dealing in plots awarded to villagers for allotment of 12.5 % area of land acquired carried out as a proprietary business in his personal name. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, “the Act”] was conducted in the case of one Shri Madan S. Kolambekar, who was dealing in land. Subsequently, search u/s. 132 of the Act was also carried out in the case of assessee on 18.02.2009. Consequent to the search and seizure action, notice u/s. 153A of the Act dated 12.10.2009 was issued and served on the assessee asking to file the return of income. In response, the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2008 on 26.02.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 4,50,960/ statutory notices under the Act were issued and served on the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) , the Assessing Officer determined total income at Rs. after making several additions to the total income declared in the return of income by the assessee. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 4 eved, prays that the addition made on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1) (ii) to the being unjustified, unwarranted, riefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee had not return of income for the year under consideration u/s. ng the year under consideration, the assessee real estate agent engaged in purchase and sale of land awarded to villagers/farmers under for allotment of 12.5 % area of land acquired. His carried out as a proprietary business in his personal name. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, in the case of one Shri who was dealing in land. Subsequently, search u/s. 132 of the Act was also carried out in the case of assessee on 18.02.2009. Consequent to the search and seizure .2009 was issued and served on the assessee asking to file the return of income. In response, the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 26.02.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 4,50,960/-. Thereafter, issued and served on the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of , the Assessing Officer determined total income at Rs. making several additions to the total income 4. Aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) of the assessee. Again, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ground no. 1 of the appeal Rs.1,31,495/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of credit card expenses. 6. The facts qua this issue various credit cards were found and vide notice u/s. 142( Act, the assessee was specifically asked to furnish details of payments for all credit/debit cards with him. details submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that certain credit cards assessee. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 07.12.2011 was issued to the assessee, in reply to which assessee that those credit card transactions his balance sheet because the same relates accounted for in that entity. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the same as the details obtained from various banks in respect of those credit cards clearly show that the same are in the name of assessee only. Further, not supported by any documentary evidence. Eventually, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. unexplained expenditure ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 Aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal Again, not satisfied with the finding of Ld CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. The ground no. 1 of the appeal relates to addition of confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of credit card The facts qua this issue are that during the course of search, various credit cards were found and vide notice u/s. 142( Act, the assessee was specifically asked to furnish details of all credit/debit cards with him. On comparison of the details submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that certain credit cards were not disclosed/accou assessee. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 07.12.2011 was issued to the assessee, in reply to which, it was explained that those credit card transactions were his balance sheet because the same relates to his HUF and are duly accounted for in that entity. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the same as the details obtained from various banks in respect of those credit cards clearly show that the same are in the name of assessee only. Further, the stand of the assessee was also not supported by any documentary evidence. Eventually, the fficer made the addition of Rs. unexplained expenditure being the total expenses reflecting against Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 5 Aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee who partly allowed the appeal d with the finding of Ld CIT(A), relates to addition of confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of credit card that during the course of search, various credit cards were found and vide notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was specifically asked to furnish details of On comparison of the details submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed not disclosed/accounted for by the assessee. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 07.12.2011 was it was explained by the not reflected in to his HUF and are duly accounted for in that entity. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the same as the details obtained from various banks in respect of those credit cards clearly show that the same are in the the stand of the assessee was also not supported by any documentary evidence. Eventually, the fficer made the addition of Rs.6,67,200/- as being the total expenses reflecting against the relevant credit cards to which the any satisfactory explanation before the Assessing Officer. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee substantiated the payments to the tune of Rs. 5,35,705/ verification, relief to that extent wa balance Rs.1,31,495/ 8. The ld. Counsel of the assessee assessment order to show that the transactions of credit cards appearing therein have two columns, one 6,67,200/- and other for payments of Rs. Officer made the addition for expenses and not for payments. He argued that if at all any additions are to be made with the reference to the transaction of a year as unex with reference to the payments in the year, that too, only when those payments are not properly explained by the appellant. The ld. Counsel submitted that all the payments towards the credit cards are either made by assessee or is Mr. Sunil Gulati HUF and that same are duly reflected in the books of accounts. Further, he argued that no claim of such expenditure is even made in the books as the same is part of withdrawals for the year in the cap further explained that in view of cash withdrawal out of capital account during various years justify the balance Ld CIT(A) has upheld due to not explained by way of cheque. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 the relevant credit cards to which the assessee could not provide any satisfactory explanation before the Assessing Officer. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee substantiated the payments to the tune of Rs. 5,35,705/- made through cheques and after due verification, relief to that extent was granted by the ld. CIT(A) and 1,31,495/- was sustained being not verifiable. The ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to para 6.4 of the assessment order to show that the transactions of credit cards appearing therein have two columns, one for expenses of Rs. and other for payments of Rs.6,54,204/- Officer made the addition for expenses and not for payments. He argued that if at all any additions are to be made with the reference to the transaction of a year as unexplained, it can be made only with reference to the payments in the year, that too, only when those payments are not properly explained by the appellant. The ld. Counsel submitted that all the payments towards the credit cards are either made by assessee or M/s. Sadguru Arts whose proprietor is Mr. Sunil Gulati HUF and that same are duly reflected in the books of accounts. Further, he argued that no claim of such expenditure is even made in the books as the same is part of withdrawals for the year in the capital account. further explained that in view of cash withdrawal out of capital account during various years justify the balance amount, Ld CIT(A) has upheld due to not explained by way of cheque. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 6 assessee could not provide any satisfactory explanation before the Assessing Officer. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee substantiated the payments made through cheques and after due the ld. CIT(A) and was sustained being not verifiable. para 6.4 of the assessment order to show that the transactions of credit cards for expenses of Rs. -. The Assessing Officer made the addition for expenses and not for payments. He argued that if at all any additions are to be made with the reference plained, it can be made only with reference to the payments in the year, that too, only when those payments are not properly explained by the appellant. The ld. Counsel submitted that all the payments towards the credit cards M/s. Sadguru Arts whose proprietor is Mr. Sunil Gulati HUF and that same are duly reflected in the books of accounts. Further, he argued that no claim of such expenditure is even made in the books as the same is part of ital account. The assessee further explained that in view of cash withdrawal out of capital amount, which the Ld CIT(A) has upheld due to not explained by way of cheque. 9. The ld. Departmental CIT(A) and requested the ld. CIT(A). 10. We have perused the rival submissions of the parties and material on record. The credit cards referred by the Assessing Officer refers to two columns, one for expenses and another for payments. So, the disallowance could have been made to the extent of payments made to credit credit amount from credit cards has carried out due verification of payments and after that he has sustained addition of Rs. 131495/ the Assessing Officer. However, if aggregate payments are to be considered for the year, then Rs. 654204/ Since, the payments of Rs. 5,35,705/ reconciled, the differential amount of Rs. Rs. 535705), is only amount has not been explained by way sources of cheque. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has shown cash withdrawal by the assessee, which are placed on record opinion, the amount of said withdrawal is sufficient to explain the source of balance amount addition on account of credit card payment is dele 11. The ground no. 2 relates to addition of Rs. 43,80,000/ confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of ld. ed for confirming the addition as sustained by We have perused the rival submissions of the parties and material on record. The credit cards referred by the Assessing efers to two columns, one for expenses and another for the disallowance could have been made to the extent of payments made to credit card and not expenses incurred or credit amount from credit cards. It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) arried out due verification of payments and after that he has sustained addition of Rs. 131495/- out of Rs. 667200/ the Assessing Officer. However, if aggregate payments are to be considered for the year, then Rs. 654204/- needs to be considered. Since, the payments of Rs. 5,35,705/- are duly verified and stands reconciled, the differential amount of Rs. 1,18,499/- , is only amount has not been explained by way sources of cheque. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has shown cash withdrawal by the assessee, which are placed on record opinion, the amount of said withdrawal is sufficient to explain the source of balance amount of Rs.1,18,499/-. Accordingly, the addition on account of credit card payment is deleted. The ground no. 2 relates to addition of Rs. 43,80,000/ confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s. 68 of the Act. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 7 relied on the order of ld. the addition as sustained by We have perused the rival submissions of the parties and material on record. The credit cards referred by the Assessing efers to two columns, one for expenses and another for the disallowance could have been made to the extent and not expenses incurred or . It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) arried out due verification of payments and after that he has out of Rs. 667200/- made by the Assessing Officer. However, if aggregate payments are to be needs to be considered. are duly verified and stands - (Rs. 654204 (-) , is only amount has not been explained by way sources of cheque. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has shown year wise cash withdrawal by the assessee, which are placed on record. In our opinion, the amount of said withdrawal is sufficient to explain the Accordingly, the ted. The ground no. 2 relates to addition of Rs. 43,80,000/- 12. The brief facts qua this issue unexplained liabilities in his balance sheet which amounted to Rs. 6,70,30,000/-. This liability included amount from Mr. Rakesh Surve and Rs. 35,00,000/ Associates. The AO made addition for entire 6,70,30,000/- u/s. 68 his onus to prove the same. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) had called for remand report on various additions made u/s. 68 of the Act in th remand report are ext “11.2 During the course of the appellant submitted additional evidences in respect of this ground of appeal. The additional evidences were admitted under Rule 46A and Remand Report was called from the AO. The AO has submitted Remand Report vide letter dated 24.12.2014 which is reproduced asunder The Assessing Officer while passing order had made an addition of Rs. 6.70.30.000/ liabilities. M/s. Rishi Enterprises ( Rs.15,00,000/ assessee has submitted that loan pertained year. ShriRakeshSurve (MIs. Shri Ganesh Builders & Developers) confirmation from the said party. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 The brief facts qua this issue are that the assessee had unexplained liabilities in his balance sheet which amounted to Rs. . This liability included amount of Rs. 8,80,000/ from Mr. Rakesh Surve and Rs. 35,00,000/- from Shree Mukund . The AO made addition for entire u/s. 68 of the Act as the assessee failed to discharge o prove the same. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) had called for remand report on various additions made u/s. 68 of the Act in the case. The comment of the remand report are extracted as under: 11.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant submitted additional evidences in respect of this ground of appeal. The additional evidences were admitted under Rule 46A and Remand Report was called from the AO. The AO has submitted Remand Report vide r dated 24.12.2014 which is reproduced asunder The Assessing Officer while passing order had made an addition of Rs. 6.70.30.000/- on account of current liabilities. M/s. Rishi Enterprises ( Rs.15,00,000/ assessee has submitted that loan pertained ShriRakeshSurve (MIs. Shri Ganesh Builders & Developers) - Rs.8,80,000/-: The assessee has filed confirmation from the said party. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 8 that the assessee had shown unexplained liabilities in his balance sheet which amounted to Rs. of Rs. 8,80,000/- from Shree Mukund . The AO made addition for entire liability of Rs. of the Act as the assessee failed to discharge o prove the same. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) had called for remand report on various additions made The comment of the AO in his appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant submitted additional evidences in respect of this ground of appeal. The additional evidences were admitted under Rule 46A and Remand Report was called from the AO. The AO has submitted Remand Report vide r dated 24.12.2014 which is reproduced asunder- The Assessing Officer while passing order had made on account of current M/s. Rishi Enterprises ( Rs.15,00,000/-) : The assessee has submitted that loan pertained to earlier ShriRakeshSurve (MIs. Shri Ganesh Builders & : The assessee has filed In this case, the notice issued us. 133/6) of the Act has been received back unserved. Therefore, the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the loan. M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd 16,00,000/ the said party. In response to the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, the party has submitted copy of ROl, statement. The party has stated that the advance made were towards purchase of land. M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd Rs.5,00,000/ from the said party. In response to the notice us. 133(6) of the Act, the bank statement. This amount represents advance for payment to villagers on behalf of M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Madan Associates assessee has filed confirmation from the said party response to the notice us. 133(6) of the Act, the party has submitted copy of ROl, bank statement. The same is found to be in order. M/s. Guru Prerna Enterprises This amount represents outstanding liability payable to M/s. Guru Pr flat from the said party. The assessee has filed sale agreement which may be considered. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 In this case, the notice issued us. 133/6) of the Act has been received back unserved. Therefore, the see has failed to prove the genuineness of the s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd 16,00,000/- : The assessee has filed confirmation from the said party. In response to the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, the party has submitted copy of ROl, statement. The party has stated that the advance made were towards purchase of land. M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd Rs.5,00,000/- : The assessee has filed confirmation from the said party. In response to the notice us. 133(6) of the Act, the party has submitted copy of ROl, bank statement. This amount represents advance for payment to villagers on behalf of M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Madan Associates - Rs.2,71,00,000/ assessee has filed confirmation from the said party response to the notice us. 133(6) of the Act, the party has submitted copy of ROl, bank statement. The same is found to be in order. M/s. Guru Prerna Enterprises - Rs.1,60,00,000/ This amount represents outstanding liability payable to M/s. Guru Prerna Enterprises for purchase of the flat from the said party. The assessee has filed sale agreement which may be considered.” Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 9 In this case, the notice issued us. 133/6) of the Act has been received back unserved. Therefore, the see has failed to prove the genuineness of the s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd - Rs.2, : The assessee has filed confirmation from the said party. In response to the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, the party has submitted copy of ROl, bank statement. The party has stated that the advance M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd - : The assessee has filed confirmation from the said party. In response to the notice us. party has submitted copy of ROl, bank statement. This amount represents advance for payment to villagers on behalf of M/s. Mahavir Rs.2,71,00,000/- : The assessee has filed confirmation from the said party. In response to the notice us. 133(6) of the Act, the party has submitted copy of ROl, bank statement. The same Rs.1,60,00,000/- : This amount represents outstanding liability payable erna Enterprises for purchase of the flat from the said party. The assessee has filed sale 12.1 Regarding the li Associates, no satisfactory material could be placed before the CIT(A) and accordingly, same was upheld and balance Rs.6,26,50,000/- was deleted. 13. The ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the remand report called from the Assessing Officer by the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that all the loans are accepted as and hence, the addition be deleted. the assessee has already expired and it was very difficult for his widow, who is legal heir of assessee various persons, still o gathering documents from relevant person and file before the AO. 14. The ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue objected and submitted accept genuineness of the lo Rakesh Surve and M/s. Mukund Associates and hence, requested to upheld the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 15. We have heard rival submission and on record. We have gone through the remand rep para 11.2 of the CIT(A)’s or collected documents for discharging onus of the as most of the cases, documents Surve, although the assessee had filed loan ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 liability of Mr. Rakesh Surve and M/s. Mukund no satisfactory material could be placed before the CIT(A) and accordingly, same was upheld and balance was deleted. The ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the remand report called from the Assessing Officer by the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that all the loans are accepted as genuine by the Assessing Officer and hence, the addition be deleted.Alternatively, he submitted that the assessee has already expired and it was very difficult for his who is legal heir of assessee, to gather documents from various persons, still one more opportunity might be provided for gathering documents from relevant person and file before the AO. The ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the and submitted that the remand report accept genuineness of the loans taken by the parties namely Rakesh Surve and M/s. Mukund Associates and hence, requested to upheld the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). heard rival submission and perused relevant on record. We have gone through the remand report reproduced at para 11.2 of the CIT(A)’s order. We find that the assessee has collected documents for discharging onus of the as , documents have been filed. In respect of Rakesh Surve, although the assessee had filed loan confirmation of Rs. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 10 of Mr. Rakesh Surve and M/s. Mukund no satisfactory material could be placed before the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, same was upheld and balance The ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the remand report called from the Assessing Officer by the ld. CIT(A) and submitted genuine by the Assessing Officer he submitted that the assessee has already expired and it was very difficult for his to gather documents from ne more opportunity might be provided for gathering documents from relevant person and file before the AO. The ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the that the remand report has not ans taken by the parties namely Rakesh Surve and M/s. Mukund Associates and hence, requested relevant material ort reproduced at find that the assessee has collected documents for discharging onus of the assessee and in n respect of Rakesh confirmation of Rs. 8,80,000/-, however, notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act had been returned unserved. In such circumstances, the Ld made effort for verification of the same by way sending inspector from his office for verification of th Associates from whom loan of Rs. 35,00,000/ the assessee has requested to provide one more opportunity for providing the documents in support. In view of above facts and circumstances, we restore this back to file of the AO for deciding afresh after examining documents filed by the assessee and conducting due enquires as ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 16. The ground no. 3 of the appeal relates to 61,309/- as personal expenses of the assessee. 17. The brief facts qua this issue claimed certain expenses on account of motor car expenses, car loan interest, depreciation and telephone expenses. However, as the assessee failed to justify these expenses, the Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of these e During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee relied on his own ITAT order for A.Y. 2003 issue; however, the same could not be applied for the reason that those years are unabated years consideration is abated assessment year ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 , however, notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act had been In such circumstances, the Ld. AO should have made effort for verification of the same by way sending inspector for verification of the party. As regards M/s. Mukund om whom loan of Rs. 35,00,000/-, the Ld Counsel of the assessee has requested to provide one more opportunity for providing the documents in support. In view of above facts and circumstances, we restore this issue of addition of Rs. back to file of the AO for deciding afresh after examining documents filed by the assessee and conducting due enquires as ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for The ground no. 3 of the appeal relates to disallowance of Rs. as personal expenses of the assessee. The brief facts qua this issue are that the assessee has claimed certain expenses on account of motor car expenses, car preciation and telephone expenses. However, as the assessee failed to justify these expenses, the Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of these expenses which worked out to Rs. During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee d on his own ITAT order for A.Y. 2003-04 to 2007 issue; however, the same could not be applied for the reason that unabated years whereas the year under consideration is abated assessment year. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 11 , however, notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act had been AO should have made effort for verification of the same by way sending inspector As regards M/s. Mukund , the Ld Counsel of the assessee has requested to provide one more opportunity for providing the documents in support. In view of above facts and issue of addition of Rs.43,80,000/- back to file of the AO for deciding afresh after examining documents filed by the assessee and conducting due enquires as required. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for disallowance of Rs. that the assessee has claimed certain expenses on account of motor car expenses, car preciation and telephone expenses. However, as the assessee failed to justify these expenses, the Assessing Officer xpenses which worked out to Rs.61,309/-. During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee 04 to 2007-08 for this issue; however, the same could not be applied for the reason that whereas the year under . Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) did not apply the ratio of those decisions being the year under consideration an un proved that these expenses were wholly and exclusively his business. 18. In this regard, we agree with the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) as the year under consideration is refrence to any incriminating material found in the course of search. But we find that the details of total of expenses filed before the Ld CIT(A) by the assessee is as under: Nature of Expenses Depreciation Interest on loan from Bank Motor car expenses Telephone Expenses 19. We are of the opinion that t does not require any vouchers as such. Similarly, the bank loan (Rs. 56,866/ Only expenses, which could be disallowed are for 12,500/-) and telephone expenses of those expenses claimed is business activity of the assessee , so same does disallowance . Accordingly, the disallowance confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is deleted. 20. The ground no. 4 of th interest of Rs. 16,19,127/ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 t apply the ratio of those decisions being the year under unabated year and that the assessee has not proved that these expenses were wholly and exclusively In this regard, we agree with the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) as the year under consideration is unabated year and has no to any incriminating material found in the course of we find that the details of total of expenses filed before the Ld CIT(A) by the assessee is as under: Nature of Expenses Amount ( Depreciation 195654 Interest on loan from Bank 56866 car expenses 12500 Telephone Expenses 23497 Total 288517 We are of the opinion that the depreciation does not require any vouchers as such. Similarly, the 866/-) cannot be disallowed on ad Only expenses, which could be disallowed are for and telephone expenses (Rs. 23,497/-) , but the quantum claimed is not too high as compared to the business activity of the assessee , so same does not . Accordingly, the disallowance confirmed by the ld The ground no. 4 of the appeal relates to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 16,19,127/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 12 t apply the ratio of those decisions being the year under abated year and that the assessee has not proved that these expenses were wholly and exclusively utilized for In this regard, we agree with the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) abated year and has no to any incriminating material found in the course of we find that the details of total of expenses filed before Amount (₹) 195654 56866 12500 23497 288517 he depreciation (Rs. 195,654/-) does not require any vouchers as such. Similarly, the interest on ) cannot be disallowed on ad-hoc basis. The Only expenses, which could be disallowed are for Motor car ( Rs. , but the quantum as compared to the not deserve any . Accordingly, the disallowance confirmed by the ld e appeal relates to the disallowance of 21. The brief facts qua, bank interest of Rs. 16,19,127/ Assessing Officer observed t nature. In response thereto, the assessee explained that these loans were business loans with personal guarantee and utilized for advancing amounts for purchasing plots of land. However, the Assessin assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance for the reasons that the assessee has not furnished any evidence of advancing loan for business as contended before the Assessing Officer. 22. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and material on record. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee being a real estate agent has to scout for the probable sellers of the CIDCO plots, which the land owners cum farmers were entitled to 12.50% of the lands surrendered by and acquired from them. Since the appellant earns reasonable amount of commission in the real estate deals made through him, he has to block the plots as and when he comes across some good plots and that blocking is possible only when some amount is paid as advance to the plot owners. For this purpose, the assessee asks the intending buyers of the plots to make advance payments to the plot owners through the appellant; however, sometimes, due to urgency, when the buyers are not readily available or cannot be contacted, ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 The brief facts qua, this issue is that the assessee has claimed bank interest of Rs. 16,19,127/- in his Profit & Loss A/c. The Assessing Officer observed that the bank loans are personal in nature. In response thereto, the assessee explained that these loans were business loans with personal guarantee given by the assessee ed for advancing amounts for purchasing plots of land. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation given by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance for the reasons that the assessee has not furnished any evidence of advancing loan for business as contended before the Assessing heard the rival submissions of the parties and material on record. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee being a real estate agent has to scout for the probable sellers of the CIDCO plots, which the land owners cum farmers ed to 12.50% of the lands surrendered by and acquired from them. Since the appellant earns reasonable amount of commission in the real estate deals made through him, he has to block the plots as and when he comes across some good plots and possible only when some amount is paid as advance to the plot owners. For this purpose, the assessee asks the intending buyers of the plots to make advance payments to the plot owners through the appellant; however, sometimes, due to urgency, ers are not readily available or cannot be contacted, Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 13 this issue is that the assessee has claimed in his Profit & Loss A/c. The hat the bank loans are personal in nature. In response thereto, the assessee explained that these loans given by the assessee ed for advancing amounts for purchasing plots of land. e explanation given by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance for the reasons that the assessee has not furnished any evidence of advancing loan for business as contended before the Assessing heard the rival submissions of the parties and material on record. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee being a real estate agent has to scout for the probable sellers of the CIDCO plots, which the land owners cum farmers ed to 12.50% of the lands surrendered by and acquired from them. Since the appellant earns reasonable amount of commission in the real estate deals made through him, he has to block the plots as and when he comes across some good plots and possible only when some amount is paid as advance to the plot owners. For this purpose, the assessee asks the intending buyers of the plots to make advance payments to the plot owners through the appellant; however, sometimes, due to urgency, ers are not readily available or cannot be contacted, the assessee himself makes these advances from out of his own funds or borrowed funds. Hence, for this purpose, the assessee at times borrows money from bank and others which is utilised for purchasing plots. Considering, the nature of business of real estate agent of the assessee, the explanation given by the ld. Counsel not unreasonable. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the assessing officer. 23. In the result, the appeal of the assessee 24. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10. The grounds raised by the assessee under: “GROUND I:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Learned Commissione MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs 55,00,000/ cash received in land deal from Mr. Madan Kolambekar in spite of the appellani already made a declarat to that extent and included in the return of income filed in response to notice us. 153A. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of cash received from Mr. Madan Kolambekar to the extent of Rs. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 the assessee himself makes these advances from out of his own funds or borrowed funds. Hence, for this purpose, the assessee at times borrows money from bank and others which is utilised for plots. Considering, the nature of business of real estate agent of the assessee, the explanation given by the ld. Counsel Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 10. The grounds raised by the assessee are - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs 55,00,000/ cash received in land deal from Mr. Madan Kolambekar in spite of the appellani already made a declaration of income to that extent and included in the return of income filed in response to notice us. 153A. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of cash received from Mr. Madan Kolambekar to the extent of Rs. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 14 the assessee himself makes these advances from out of his own funds or borrowed funds. Hence, for this purpose, the assessee at times borrows money from bank and others which is utilised for plots. Considering, the nature of business of real estate agent of the assessee, the explanation given by the ld. Counsel is Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the is partly allowed. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year are reproduced as On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the r of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54 , MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs 55,00,000/- as cash received in land deal from Mr. Madan Kolambekar in- ion of income to that extent and included in the return of income filed in The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of cash received from Mr. Madan Kolambekar to 55,00,000/- illegal be deleted. GROUND II : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) MUMBAI (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs 6,03,000/ unverifiable transactions in respect of Plot No: 154 Sector by the appellant with M/s. Madan Associates. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unverifiable tr 154 Sector-44 with M/s Madan Associates to the extent of Rs. 6,03,000/ and illegal be deleted. GROUND III: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) ha account of other cash / unaccounted transaction to the extent of Rs. 1,63,22,000/ expenditure us. 69C of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure us. 69C to the extent of Rs. 1,63,22,000/ law and illegal be deleted GROUND IV : ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND II :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) MUMBAI (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs 6,03,000/ unverifiable transactions in respect of Plot No: 154 Sector by the appellant with M/s. Madan Associates. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unverifiable transaction in respect of Plot No 44 with M/s Madan Associates to the extent of Rs. 6,03,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND III:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash / unaccounted transaction to the extent of Rs. 1,63,22,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure us. 69C of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made account of unexplained expenditure us. 69C to the extent of Rs. 1,63,22,000/-being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted GROUND IV :- Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 15 unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54 , MUMBAI (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs 6,03,000/- as unverifiable transactions in respect of Plot No: 154 Sector-44 The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made ansaction in respect of Plot No 44 with M/s Madan Associates to the extent of being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the s erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash / unaccounted transaction to the extent by treating it as unexplained The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made account of unexplained expenditure us. 69C to the extent being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the ad account of consideration received for plot no: 22 Sector 6 Airoli to the extent of Rs. 20,34,625/ 1,24,18,570/ 49 of Annexure: 2 by treating the same as unaccounted/undisclosed circumstances, addition is incorrect and unlawful. The appellate pray to delete the additions of Rs. 20,34,625/ GROUND V : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addit account of cash found during the search for Rs.16,93,750/ treating the same as unexplained money us. 69A in-spite of the fact that the appellant has explained that there was cash on hand as on the date of search i.e. 18 2009 represented by and circumstances, addition is incorrect and unlawful. The appellate pray to delete the additions of Rs.16,93,750/ GROUND VI : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of jewellery for Rs.16,81,573/ unexplained investment us. 69. Source of jewellery are fully explained during th erred in holding the amount of Rs. 16,81,573/ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of consideration received for plot no: 22 Sector 6 Airoli to the extent of Rs. 20,34,625/-from out of Rs. 1,24,18,570/- merely based on a loose paper found at sr. no: 49 of Annexure: 2 by treating the same as unaccounted/undisclosed income. Under the facts and circumstances, addition is incorrect and unlawful. The appellate pray to delete the additions of Rs. 20,34,625/ GROUND V :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of cash found during the search for Rs.16,93,750/ treating the same as unexplained money us. spite of the fact that the appellant has explained that there was cash on hand as on the date of search i.e. 18 2009 represented by sufficient withdrawals. Under the facts and circumstances, addition is incorrect and unlawful. The appellate pray to delete the additions of Rs.16,93,750/ GROUND VI :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of jewellery for Rs.16,81,573/- treating the same as unexplained investment us. 69. Source of jewellery are fully explained during the assessment proceeding. He further erred in holding the amount of Rs. 16,81,573/ Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 16 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dition made on account of consideration received for plot no: 22 Sector 6 from out of Rs. merely based on a loose paper found at sr. no: 49 of Annexure: 2 by treating the same as income. Under the facts and circumstances, addition is incorrect and unlawful. The appellate pray to delete the additions of Rs. 20,34,625/- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ion made on account of cash found during the search for Rs.16,93,750/- spite of the fact that the appellant has explained that there was cash on hand as on the date of search i.e. 18-02- sufficient withdrawals. Under the facts and circumstances, addition is incorrect and unlawful. The appellate pray to delete the additions of Rs.16,93,750/-. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on treating the same as unexplained investment us. 69. Source of jewellery are fully e assessment proceeding. He further erred in holding the amount of Rs. 16,81,573/- as unexplained investment us.69A of the Act. Even the addition is not in sync with his detailed reasoning. Therefore under the facts and consideration additions are unwarran appellate pray to delete the addition of Rs.16,81,573/ GROUND VII : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 1,74,01,3671 Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit us.68 to the extent of Rs 1,74,01,367/ and illegal be deleted GROUND VIII: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the estimated disallowance of Rs. 30,577/ element in certain expenses The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the disallowance made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 30,5771 unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND IX: ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 unexplained investment us.69A of the Act. Even the addition is not in sync with his detailed reasoning. Therefore under the facts and consideration additions are unwarran appellate pray to delete the addition of Rs.16,81,573/ GROUND VII :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as ined cash credit for Rs. 1,74,01,3671- u/s. 68 of the The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit us.68 to the extent of Rs 1,74,01,367/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted GROUND VIII:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the estimated disallowance of Rs. 30,577/- made on account of personal element in certain expenses. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the disallowance made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 30,5771- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND IX:- Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 17 unexplained investment us.69A of the Act. Even the addition is not in sync with his detailed reasoning. Therefore under the facts and consideration additions are unwarranted. The appellate pray to delete the addition of Rs.16,81,573/-. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as u/s. 68 of the The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit us.68 to the extent of Rs d, unwarranted, bad in law On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the estimated made on account of personal The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the disallowance made on account of estimated personal element in certain being unjustified, On the facts and in Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1) (iii) to the extent of Rs. 24,13,176/ purposes. The appellant being aggriev on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1)(iii) to the extent of Rs. 24,13, 176/ bad in law and illegal be deleted GROUND X:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of donation of Rs. 10,000/ appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of disallowance of donation u/s. 80G be deleted. 25. The ground No. assessee on 20/09/2022. The said under: “REVISED GROUND VII TO BE READ AS UNDER: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the a account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit aggregating to Rs. 3,33,62,724/ 68 of the Act in respect of Rs. 2,16,00,000/ Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd. (PAN : AAFCM2072C) ; ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1) (iii) to the extent of Rs. 24,13,176/- alleging it being not for the business The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1)(iii) to the extent of Rs. 24,13, 176/-being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of donation of Rs. 10,000/ appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of disallowance of donation u/s. 80G be deleted. ground No. 7 of the appeal was revised/modified assessee on 20/09/2022. The said revised ground is reproduced as REVISED GROUND VII TO BE READ AS UNDER:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit aggregating to Rs. 3,33,62,724/ 68 of the Act in respect of Rs. 2,16,00,000/- pertains to M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd. (PAN : AAFCM2072C) ; Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 18 the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1) (iii) to the extent alleging it being not for the business ed, prays that the addition made on account of disallowance of interest us. 36(1)(iii) to the being unjustified, unwarranted, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of donation of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of disallowance of donation u/s. 80G be deleted.” /modified by the revised ground is reproduced as On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ddition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit aggregating to Rs. 3,33,62,724/-us. pertains to M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd. (PAN : AAFCM2072C) ; Rs. 90,00,000/ Ltd. (MOU) and Rs. 27,62,724/ The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit us. 6 3,33,62,724/ and illegal, be deleted 26. In ground No. one issue raised relates to addition of and cash received in land deals from Mr Madan Kolambkar. 27. The brief facts qua t Officer made addition of received by the assessee on the basis of annexure to MIS report under the details of development charges, which is seized from the premises of Sh Madan 28. Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of observing as under: “6.3 The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment Order and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. The facts of the case are that as per the main part of the status report as on 31.10.2008, the total payments made to Shri Suni Gulati for this plot 226 of Annexure A Kolambekar) are Rs. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 0,000/- pertains to M/s. Narayan Niryat India Pvt. Ltd. (MOU) and Rs. 27,62,724/- pertains to Basant Reality. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit us. 68 to the extent of Rs 3,33,62,724/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal, be deleted.” ground No. one issue raised relates to addition of and cash received in land deals from Mr Madan Kolambkar. The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.3,50,00,000/-as unaccounted cash received by the assessee on the basis of annexure to MIS report under the details of development charges, which is seized from the Madan Kolambkar. Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 6.3 The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment Order and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. The facts of the case are that as per the main part of the status report as on 31.10.2008, the total payments made to Shri Suni Gulati for this plot - Kachha 33, Vadghar (Page No. 226 of Annexure A-1 seized from the office of Shri Madan Kolambekar) are Rs.621 lakh. Further, in the ledger register, Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 19 pertains to M/s. Narayan Niryat India Pvt. pertains to Basant Reality. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as 8 to the extent of Rs being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law ground No. one issue raised relates to addition of ₹ 55 lakh and cash received in land deals from Mr Madan Kolambkar. he issue in dispute are that the Assessing as unaccounted cash received by the assessee on the basis of annexure to MIS report under the details of development charges, which is seized from the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of ₹ 55 lakh 6.3 The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment Order and the written submissions of the The facts of the case are that as per the main part of the status report as on 31.10.2008, the total payments made to Kachha 33, Vadghar (Page No. 1 seized from the office of Shri Madan 621 lakh. Further, in the ledger register, Annexue A- Kolambekar on 06.02.2009 ( Page No. 175 {6/F No. 174}), shows a total payment made for the aforesaid plot only to the tune of Rs.271 lakh. Further, the "developmen sheet ie the third Annexure to the Status Report ( page no. 221 ) shows an amount of Rs.350 lakh against the name of the assessee. The amount of Rs.271 lakhs has been paid through cheques and it was reflected in the bank account in Cosmos Co- payment of Rs.271 lakhs was accounted for in the books of Shri Madan Kolambekar.The appellant had entered into an understanding with Shri. Madan Kolambekar for the supply of land admeasuring Approx. 10,000 sqare metr Node, the appellant could supply only two plots namely, (1) Plot No. 109, Sector and (2) Plot No. 128, Sector metre totalling 600 sq, metre and the balance out of 10,000 sq, metre was not supplied to Madan Kolambekar. In respect of supply of Kaccha plot no. 33 in Vadghar Node to M/s Madan Associates; the appellant had agreed to supply appx. 10,000 sq.m.of plot at Vadghar Node to Shri. Madan Kolambekar. Shri.Sunil Gulati had rec in cash from MadanKolambekar and Rs.2.21.00,000/ through cheques. Thus, Rs. 2,76,00,000/ by the Appellant in respect of land to be supplied to Kolambekar in Vadghar Node Area. In view of the above, from the additi addition of Rs. 55,00,000/ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 -1, seized from the office of Shri Madan Kolambekar on 06.02.2009 ( Page No. 175 {6/F No. 174}), shows a total payment made for the aforesaid plot only to the tune of Rs.271 lakh. Further, the "developmen sheet ie the third Annexure to the Status Report ( page no. 221 ) shows an amount of Rs.350 lakh against the name of the assessee. The amount of Rs.271 lakhs has been paid through cheques and it was reflected in the bank account in -operative Bank Ltd of Shri Sunil Gulati.This payment of Rs.271 lakhs was accounted for in the books of Shri Madan Kolambekar.The appellant had entered into an understanding with Shri. Madan Kolambekar for the supply of land admeasuring Approx. 10,000 sqare metre in Vadghar Node, the appellant could supply only two plots namely, (1) Plot No. 109, Sector-5, Vadghar admeasuring 200 sq. metre and (2) Plot No. 128, Sector-5, Vadghar admeasuring 400 sq. metre totalling 600 sq, metre and the balance out of 10,000 etre was not supplied to Madan Kolambekar. In respect of supply of Kaccha plot no. 33 in Vadghar Node to M/s Madan Associates; the appellant had agreed to supply appx. 10,000 sq.m.of plot at Vadghar Node to Shri. Madan Kolambekar. Shri.Sunil Gulati had received Rs. 55,00,000/ in cash from MadanKolambekar and Rs.2.21.00,000/ through cheques. Thus, Rs. 2,76,00,000/- only was received by the Appellant in respect of land to be supplied to Kolambekar in Vadghar Node Area. In view of the above, from the addition of Rs.3.50 Crores, the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- is sustained being cash payment Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 20 1, seized from the office of Shri Madan Kolambekar on 06.02.2009 ( Page No. 175 {6/F No. 174}), shows a total payment made for the aforesaid plot only to the tune of Rs.271 lakh. Further, the "development charge sheet ie the third Annexure to the Status Report ( page no. 221 ) shows an amount of Rs.350 lakh against the name of the assessee. The amount of Rs.271 lakhs has been paid through cheques and it was reflected in the bank account in tive Bank Ltd of Shri Sunil Gulati.This payment of Rs.271 lakhs was accounted for in the books of Shri Madan Kolambekar.The appellant had entered into an understanding with Shri. Madan Kolambekar for the supply e in Vadghar Node, the appellant could supply only two plots namely, (1) 5, Vadghar admeasuring 200 sq. metre 5, Vadghar admeasuring 400 sq. metre totalling 600 sq, metre and the balance out of 10,000 etre was not supplied to Madan Kolambekar. In respect of supply of Kaccha plot no. 33 in Vadghar Node to M/s Madan Associates; the appellant had agreed to supply appx. 10,000 sq.m.of plot at Vadghar Node to Shri. Madan eived Rs. 55,00,000/- in cash from MadanKolambekar and Rs.2.21.00,000/-, only was received by the Appellant in respect of land to be supplied to on of Rs.3.50 Crores, the is sustained being cash payment received Shri Madan Kolambekar to Shri Madam Kolambekar in Vadghar Node Area. Accordingly, the ground no.1 of appeal is partly allowed. 29. Before us, the Ld. counsel “Amount received from Madan Kolambekar Rs. 55,00,000/ The A.O. has made addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/ that a cash receipt of Rs 55,00,000/ the learnedCIT(A) Rs. 3,50,00,000/ confirm having received Rs. 55,00,000/ him which has been duly shown in the appellant's books of accounts. The said income from undisclosed has to tax in the return as Income from other sources us.153A to the extent of Rs 68,00,000/ Though the appellant has received Rs. 55,00,000/ from Madan Kolambekar, he has denied the said payment of cash of Rs. 55,00,000/ with the confirmation letter dated 18.05.2012. However, as a true and sincere person, the appellant has entered the receipt of cash of Rs. 55.00.000/ Thus whatever the appellan Kolambekar, either in cheque or in cash, have been accounted for in his books. warranted and hence it is prayed that it be deleted. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 received Shri Madan Kolambekar in respect of land supplied to Shri Madam Kolambekar in Vadghar Node Area. Accordingly, the ground no.1 of appeal is partly allowed. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted as under: Amount received from Madan Kolambekar Rs. 55,00,000/ The A.O. has made addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/ that a cash receipt of Rs 55,00,000/- has been sustained by the learnedCIT(A)-54. We categorically denied the receipt of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-in cash from Madan Kolambekar and we confirm having received Rs. 55,00,000/- Lakhs in cash from him which has been duly shown in the appellant's books of accounts. The said income from undisclosed has been offered to tax in the return as Income from other sources us.153A to the extent of Rs 68,00,000/- as part of the disclosure made. Though the appellant has received Rs. 55,00,000/ from Madan Kolambekar, he has denied the said payment of of Rs. 55,00,000/- vide his separate letter enclosed with the confirmation letter dated 18.05.2012. However, as a true and sincere person, the appellant has entered the receipt of cash of Rs. 55.00.000/- in his books of accounts. Thus whatever the appellant has received from Madan Kolambekar, either in cheque or in cash, have been accounted for in his books. Therefore no further addition is warranted and hence it is prayed that it be deleted. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 21 respect of land supplied to Shri Madam Kolambekar in Vadghar Node Area. Accordingly, the ground no.1 of appeal is partly allowed.” of the assessee submitted as under: Amount received from Madan Kolambekar Rs. 55,00,000/- The A.O. has made addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- from out has been sustained by We categorically denied the receipt of in cash from Madan Kolambekar and we Lakhs in cash from him which has been duly shown in the appellant's books of been offered to tax in the return as Income from other sources us.153A to as part of the disclosure made. Though the appellant has received Rs. 55,00,000/- in cash from Madan Kolambekar, he has denied the said payment of vide his separate letter enclosed with the confirmation letter dated 18.05.2012. However, as a true and sincere person, the appellant has entered the in his books of accounts. t has received from Madan Kolambekar, either in cheque or in cash, have been Therefore no further addition is warranted and hence it is prayed that it be deleted.” 30. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue i dispute and perused the relevant material assessee has candidly accepted receipt of have entered in books of accounts and offered as the undisclosed income of ₹ 68 lakh addition in the case is required computation of income returned by the Assessing officer is therefore restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the ground allowed for statistical purpose. 31. In ground No. 2 addition of Rs.6,03,000/ addition of ₹63,29,500/ respect of unexplaine plot No. 154, sector which was handed over to Sri Madan Kolambkar. 32. Brief facts qua search proceedings in the case of incriminating documents were impounded/seized which reflected amount of ₹63,29,500/ assessee for purchase of plots for parties namely Shyam Bhoir, Tulsabai Ramdas Patil, Gangaram Surekha Ram Patil. The position of consideration and total payment ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue i dispute and perused the relevant material on assessee has candidly accepted receipt of ₹ 55 lakh and shown to have entered in books of accounts and offered as the undisclosed filed for the search period, thus, addition in the case is required subject to verification of computation of income returned by the Assessing officer is therefore restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose. 2 of the appeal, the assessee is ag 000/-sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) against the 500/-which was made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained expenditure in relation to transactions for plot No. 154, sector-44, Dronagiri Node admeasuring 2950 m², which was handed over to Sri Madan Kolambkar. qua the issue in dispute are that in the course of ch proceedings in the case of Sh Madan Kolmbkar certain incriminating documents were impounded/seized which reflected 500/- paid by the Madan Kolmabkar to the assessee for purchase of plots for parties namely Shyam Bhoir, Tulsabai Ramdas Patil, Gangaram Budhaji . The position of consideration and total payment Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 22 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in on record. As the 55 lakh and shown to have entered in books of accounts and offered as the undisclosed thus, no separate subject to verification of computation of income returned by the Assessing officer. The issue is therefore restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. of the appeal of the assessee is of the appeal, the assessee is agitated by the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) against the which was made by the Assessing Officer in d expenditure in relation to transactions for measuring 2950 m², the issue in dispute are that in the course of Madan Kolmbkar certain incriminating documents were impounded/seized which reflected paid by the Madan Kolmabkar to the assessee for purchase of plots for parties namely Shyam Kaluram Budhaji Thakur and . The position of consideration and total payment as on18/10/2008, reproduced by the Assessing Officer is extracted as under: 32.1 In view of no supporting evidence filed by the assessee Assessing Officer held the amount of expenditure under section 609C of the Ld. CIT(A) after verification of submission of the assessee found that payment of ₹57,26,000/ accordingly, he deleted the addition to that extent and upheld the addition to the extent of 33. Before us the Ld. counsel the Tribunal for assessment year 2003 3496 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/mum/2015 and submitted that Tribunal has held that assessee agency work of purchase and sale on behalf of other parties and the ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 as on18/10/2008, reproduced by the Assessing Officer is extracted view of no supporting evidence filed by the assessee Assessing Officer held the amount of ₹63,29,500/- expenditure under section 609C of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after verification of submission of the assessee found that 57,26,000/-was made through cheque an he deleted the addition to that extent and upheld the addition to the extent of ₹6,03,000/-. Ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the order of ribunal for assessment year 2003-04 to 2007 94 & 4795/mum/2015 and submitted that has held that assessee was engaged in real estate as agency work of purchase and sale on behalf of other parties and the Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 23 as on18/10/2008, reproduced by the Assessing Officer is extracted view of no supporting evidence filed by the assessee, the as unexplained ct. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after verification of submission of the assessee found that was made through cheque and he deleted the addition to that extent and upheld the of the assessee relied on the order of 04 to 2007-08 in ITA No. 94 & 4795/mum/2015 and submitted that was engaged in real estate as agency work of purchase and sale on behalf of other parties and the Assessing Officer had not brought on record anything to suggest that those land transac name. 34. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant transaction of the assessee the assessee was engaged in brokering activity of purchase and sale of the land. The relevant finding of the under: “9.1 We find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by him in his personal capacity. In such situation, assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on invest addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. 34.1 In the facts qua the issue in dispute also it is evident that assessee has merely acted as broker for Mr Madan Kolmbkar for purchase of plots from four persons and this fact has been corroborated from the seized documents and cheque payments made by the assessee. Accordingly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified, therefore same is ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 Assessing Officer had not brought on record anything to suggest that those land transactions were done by the assessee in his We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record transaction of the assessee the Tribunal (supra) has observed that s engaged in brokering activity of purchase and sale of the land. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as 9.1 We find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by him in his personal capacity. In such situation, assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on investment transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted.” the facts qua the issue in dispute also it is evident that assessee has merely acted as broker for Mr Madan Kolmbkar for plots from four persons and this fact has been corroborated from the seized documents and cheque payments made by the assessee. Accordingly, the addition of sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified, therefore same is Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 24 Assessing Officer had not brought on record anything to suggest tions were done by the assessee in his We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in record. Regarding the ribunal (supra) has observed that s engaged in brokering activity of purchase and sale of ribunal is reproduced as 9.1 We find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by him in his personal capacity. In such situation, assessee cannot be taxed ment transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed the facts qua the issue in dispute also it is evident that assessee has merely acted as broker for Mr Madan Kolmbkar for plots from four persons and this fact has been corroborated from the seized documents and cheque payments the addition of ₹ 6, 03, 000/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified, therefore same is deleted. The ground accordingly allowed. 35. In ground No. 3 of amount of ₹1,63,22, addition of ₹7,57,07,000/ in respect of the cash/unaccounted transactions of the assessee. 36. The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that on the basis of noting on various pages of annexure A the Arneja office, page No. 43 and 64 of Annexure A Arneja office and various pages of annexure A Building, made addition of summarized all these additions in para 12.1 of the impugned order. For ready reference, said Paras “12.1 During the assessment proceedings, the A observed that various seized documents indicated cash/unaccounted transactions. (i) The AO observed that page no.1 of Annexure A impounded from ArnejaOffice, contained details of cash payment of Rs.2 Anil Sakpal. Certain cheque payment of Rs.3,00,000/ to Pandhari Balkrishan Gharat and Rs.50,000/ Jayshree Kamlakar Patil and Surekha Shashikant Patil were also appearing on these pages. From the Ulve Plot that out of the 7 lakhs, cash payment of Rs.1,00,000/ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 ground No. two of the appeal of the assessee 3 of the appeal, the assessee is 1,63,22,000/-sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) out of the 000/-which was made by the Assessing in respect of the cash/unaccounted transactions of the assessee. The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that on the basis of noting on various pages of annexure A-1 impounded/seized from the Arneja office, page No. 43 and 64 of Annexure A Arneja office and various pages of annexure A-2 seized from Kaveri made addition of ₹7,57,07,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has ed all these additions in para 12.1 of the impugned order. For ready reference, said Paras are reproduced as under: 12.1 During the assessment proceedings, the A observed that various seized documents indicated cash/unaccounted transactions. The AO observed that page no.1 of Annexure A impounded from ArnejaOffice, contained details of cash payment of Rs.2,00,000/- were made by the assessee to Mr. Anil Sakpal. Certain cheque payment of Rs.3,00,000/ to Pandhari Balkrishan Gharat and Rs.50,000/ Jayshree Kamlakar Patil and Surekha Shashikant Patil were also appearing on these pages. From the Ulve Plot that out of the 7 lakhs, cash payment of Rs.1,00,000/ Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 25 No. two of the appeal of the assessee is is agitated by way sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) out of the which was made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the cash/unaccounted transactions of the assessee. The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that on the basis of 1 impounded/seized from the Arneja office, page No. 43 and 64 of Annexure A-3 is from 2 seized from Kaveri . The Ld. CIT(A) has ed all these additions in para 12.1 of the impugned order. under: 12.1 During the assessment proceedings, the A observed that various seized documents indicated cash/unaccounted The AO observed that page no.1 of Annexure A-1 impounded from ArnejaOffice, contained details of cash were made by the assessee to Mr. Anil Sakpal. Certain cheque payment of Rs.3,00,000/ to Pandhari Balkrishan Gharat and Rs.50,000/- each to Jayshree Kamlakar Patil and Surekha Shashikant Patil were also appearing on these pages. From the Ulve Plot, it is seen that out of the 7 lakhs, cash payment of Rs.1,00,000/- has been made by the assessee to Shri Peter Anton Patil @Machado. and remaining Rs.6 lakh was paid by Shri B. Chajjer. The AO observed that apart from the above payments, apparently no pay made against the remaining 2 plots i.e. 550 Ulwe and 300 Ulwe. Thus, as per the page, the assessee has made cheque payments of Rs.4 lakh and cash payment of Rs.3 lakhs. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these payments. Accordingly, the AO made addition U/s.69C of Rs.7,00,000/ unaccounted payment(which inc payment of Rs.3 lakh) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ (ii) The AO observed that page no.2 and 3 of Annexure A impounded fromArneja Office, c Rs.73,50,000/ Gosawi. As per entries on these pages, total cash payment of Rs.66,00,000/ been made by the assessee in respect of several/properties. The AO observed that cash payments of Rs.10 lakhshave been made during the F.Y. 2007 Rs.56 lakh have been made in F.Y. 2008 The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents Accordingly, the AO made addition U/s.69C of Rs.63,50,000/ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 been made by the assessee to Shri Peter Anton Patil @Machado. and remaining Rs.6 lakh was paid by Shri B. Chajjer. The AO observed that apart from the above payments, apparently no payments are seen to have been made against the remaining 2 plots i.e. 550 Ulwe and 300 Ulwe. Thus, as per the page, the assessee has made cheque payments of Rs.4 lakh and cash payment of Rs.3 lakhs. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these payments. Accordingly, the AO made addition U/s.69C of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of unaccounted payment(which include unaccounted cash payment of Rs.3 lakh) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ The AO observed that page no.2 and 3 of Annexure A impounded fromArneja Office, contained cash payment of Rs.73,50,000/- were made by theassessee to Mr. Vinay Gosawi. As per entries on these pages, total cash payment of Rs.66,00,000/- and cheque payment of R$.7,50.000/ been made by the assessee in respect of several/properties. e AO observed that cash payments of Rs.10 lakhshave been made during the F.Y. 2007-08 and cash payments of Rs.56 lakh have been made in F.Y. 2008-09 by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. Accordingly, the AO made addition U/s.69C of Rs.63,50,000/ Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 26 been made by the assessee to Shri Peter Anton Patil @Machado. and remaining Rs.6 lakh was paid by Shri B. Chajjer. The AO observed that apart from the above ments are seen to have been made against the remaining 2 plots i.e. 550 Ulwe and 300 Ulwe. Thus, as per the page, the assessee has made cheque payments of Rs.4 lakh and cash payment of Rs.3 lakhs. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these payments. Accordingly, the AO on account of lude unaccounted cash Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The AO observed that page no.2 and 3 of Annexure A-1 ontained cash payment of were made by theassessee to Mr. Vinay Gosawi. As per entries on these pages, total cash payment of and cheque payment of R$.7,50.000/- has been made by the assessee in respect of several/properties. e AO observed that cash payments of Rs.10 lakhshave 08 and cash payments of 09 by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment and other relevant details. Accordingly, the AO made addition U/s.69C of Rs.63,50,000/- (including cheque payment of Rs.7.50 lakh) on account of unaccounted cash payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has Rs.56,00,000/ (iii) The AO observed that page no. 17 of Annexure A impounded from ArnejaOffice, contained cash of Rs.65 lakh have been received by the assessee in respect of various properties/plot. The AO aske explanation alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during the F.Y. 2008 lakh were received by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.65 lakh u/s.69C on account of unaccounted cash received. (iv) The AO observed that page no.26 & 27 of Annexure A impounded from Arneja Office, contained Cheque and cash payments were made to various farmers.Out of the total payments made of Rs.1,20,85,000/ Rs.2,64,000/ asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during the F.Y. 2008 of unaccounted payments (which include unaccounted cash ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 (including cheque payment of Rs.7.50 lakh) on account of unaccounted cash payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.56,00,000/-(Cash Expenditure). The AO observed that page no. 17 of Annexure A impounded from ArnejaOffice, contained cash of Rs.65 lakh have been received by the assessee in respect of various properties/plot. The AO asked the assessee to furnish explanation alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during the F.Y. 2008-09, cash of Rs.65 lakh were received by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.65 lakh u/s.69C on account of unaccounted cash received. The AO observed that page no.26 & 27 of Annexure A impounded from Arneja Office, contained Cheque and cash were made to various farmers.Out of the total payments made of Rs.1,20,85,000/- an amount of Rs.2,64,000/- has been paid in cash by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during the F.Y. 2008-09, an amount of Rs. 1,20,85,000/ of unaccounted payments (which include unaccounted cash Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 27 (including cheque payment of Rs.7.50 lakh) on account of Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) disallowed an amount of The AO observed that page no. 17 of Annexure A-1 impounded from ArnejaOffice, contained cash of Rs.65 lakh have been received by the assessee in respect of various d the assessee to furnish explanation alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. 09, cash of Rs.65 lakh were received by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.65 lakh u/s.69C on account of The AO observed that page no.26 & 27 of Annexure A-1 impounded from Arneja Office, contained Cheque and cash were made to various farmers.Out of the total an amount of has been paid in cash by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed 09, an amount of Rs. 1,20,85,000/- of unaccounted payments (which include unaccounted cash payment of Rs. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,20,85,000/ u/s.69C on account of unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.2,69,000/ (Cash expenditure). (v) The AO observed thatpage no.30 to 35 of Annexure A impounded fromArneja Office, contained cash of Rs.2,30,000/ 118, sector 55. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of paym relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that, cash payments of R$.1.00,000/ been made during the F.Y.2007 Rs.1.30.000/ assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.1,30,000/ u/s.69C on account of unaccounted cash payment Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act an (Cash expenditure). (vi) The AO observed that page no.43 and 60 of Annexure A impounded from Arneja Office, contained total payment of Rs. 16,72,000/- payment of Rs.2 furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 payment of Rs.2,69,000) were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,20,85,000/ u/s.69C on account of unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.2,69,000/ (Cash expenditure). The AO observed thatpage no.30 to 35 of Annexure A impounded fromArneja Office, contained cash of Rs.2,30,000/- is paid to Kamlakar S. Tandel against plot no 118, sector 55. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of paymentalongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that, cash payments of R$.1.00,000/ been made during the F.Y.2007-08 and cash payments of Rs.1.30.000/- have been made in F.Y. 2008 assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.1,30,000/ u/s.69C on account of unaccounted cash payment Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ (Cash expenditure). The AO observed that page no.43 and 60 of Annexure A impounded from Arneja Office, contained total payment of Rs. is made by the assessee which includes cash payment of Rs.2,25,000/-. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 28 2,69,000) were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,20,85,000/- Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.2,69,000/- The AO observed thatpage no.30 to 35 of Annexure A-1 impounded fromArneja Office, contained cash of is paid to Kamlakar S. Tandel against plot no 118, sector 55. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that, cash payments of R$.1.00,000/-have cash payments of have been made in F.Y. 2008-09 by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.1,30,000/- u/s.69C on account of unaccounted cash payment Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) d has disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- The AO observed that page no.43 and 60 of Annexure A-3 impounded from Arneja Office, contained total payment of Rs. is made by the assessee which includes cash . The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during 09, an amount of Rs.16,72,000/ (which include unaccounted cash payment of Rs.2,25,000) were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 16,72,000/ unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the IT.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.2,25,000/ (Cash expenditure). (vii) The AD observed that page no,1 of Annexure A impounded from Kaveri Bldg, contained payments to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/ source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these payments. The A observed that during the F.Y. Rs.4,50,000/ AO made addition of Rs.4,50,000/ unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the IT.Act and has disallowed an a (Cash expenditure). viii. The AO observed that page no.2 of Annexure A impounded from Kaveri Bldg, it is seen thatthe assessee has entered into deals of 11 files for a total amount of Rs.7,49,00,000/ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during the F.Y. 2008 09, an amount of Rs.16,72,000/- of unaccounted payments (which include unaccounted cash payment of Rs.2,25,000) were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 16,72,000/- u/s.69C on account of unaccounted payment. r, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the IT.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.2,25,000/ (Cash expenditure). The AD observed that page no,1 of Annexure A impounded from Kaveri Bldg, contained payments to the tune 0,000/-.The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these payments. The A observed that during the F.Y. 2008-09, payments of Rs.4,50,000/- were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.4,50,000/- u/s.69C on account of unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the IT.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/ (Cash expenditure). viii. The AO observed that page no.2 of Annexure A impounded from Kaveri Bldg, it is seen thatthe assessee has entered into deals of 11 files for a total amount of Rs.7,49,00,000/- which was payable by the assess Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 29 furnish any details and explanation about the source of these the F.Y. 2008- of unaccounted payments (which include unaccounted cash payment of Rs.2,25,000) were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made u/s.69C on account of r, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the IT.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- The AD observed that page no,1 of Annexure A-2 impounded from Kaveri Bldg, contained payments to the tune .The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these payments. The A 09, payments of were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the u/s.69C on account of Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) mount of Rs.4,50,000/- viii. The AO observed that page no.2 of Annexure A-2 impounded from Kaveri Bldg, it is seen thatthe assessee has entered into deals of 11 files for a total amount of which was payable by the assessee. Out of this payable amount of Rs.7,49,00,000/ 1,61,00,000/ payment of Rs.1,61,00.000/ Rs.1,18,00,000/ asked the asses alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during the F.Y. 2008 were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.1,18,00,000/ unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,18,00,000/ (ix) The AO observed that page no.11 of Annexure A from Kaveri Bldg, contained cash payment of Rs.87,00,000/ were made by the assessee to Mr. Vinay Gosawi out of which Rs.31.00,000/ assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. Accordingly, the AO made addition U/s.69C of Rs.56,00,000/ unaccounted cash. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 this payable amount of Rs.7,49,00,000/- total amount of Rs. 1,61,00,000/- is mentioned as paid. As per thesheet, total payment of Rs.1,61,00.000/- has been made, out of which Rs.1,18,00,000/- has been paid by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during the F.Y. 2008-09, payments of Rs.1,18,00,000/ were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.1,18,00,000/- u/s.69C on account of unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. ,00,000/-. The AO observed that page no.11 of Annexure A from Kaveri Bldg, contained cash payment of Rs.87,00,000/ were made by the assessee to Mr. Vinay Gosawi out of which Rs.31.00,000/- were paid in F.Y. 2007-08. The AO asked the to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. Accordingly, the AO made addition U/s.69C of Rs.56,00,000/- on unaccounted cash. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 30 total amount of Rs. is mentioned as paid. As per thesheet, total has been made, out of which has been paid by the assessee. The AO see to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed .1,18,00,000/- were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made u/s.69C on account of Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. The AO observed that page no.11 of Annexure A-2 seized from Kaveri Bldg, contained cash payment of Rs.87,00,000/- were made by the assessee to Mr. Vinay Gosawi out of which 08. The AO asked the to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. Accordingly, the AO made on account of Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.56,00,000/ (x) The AO observed that page no.23 of Annexure A from Kaveri Bldg Surve Rs.1,17,50,000/ and Labchand (Rs.12,50,000/ of various properties/plots and are in the form of on payments'. The AO asked the assessee of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.1,35,00,000/ u/s.69C on account of unaccounted cash payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/ XiThe AO observed that page no.24 of Annexure A impounded from KaveriBldg containe two t shows details of 13 plots and the other table shows details of 11 plots (with file nos.). As regards 13 plots, the assessee has entered into deals of 13 files for a total amount of Rs.7,49,00,000/ Similarly, in respect of 11 plots, the assessee has entered into deals of 11 files for a total payable amount of Rs.3,12,00,000/ Rs.10,61,00,000/ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.56,00,000/-(Cash expenditure). The AO observed that page no.23 of Annexure A from Kaveri Bldg contained total amount paid fo. to Rakesh. Surve Rs.1,17,50,000/-), Sumeet Bacchewar (Rs.5,00,000/ and Labchand (Rs.12,50,000/-). The payments are in respect of various properties/plots and are in the form of on payments'. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.1,35,00,000/ n account of unaccounted cash payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- XiThe AO observed that page no.24 of Annexure A impounded from KaveriBldg containe two tables. One table shows details of 13 plots and the other table shows details of 11 plots (with file nos.). As regards 13 plots, the assessee has entered into deals of 13 files for a total amount of Rs.7,49,00,000/- which waspayable by the assessee. ly, in respect of 11 plots, the assessee has entered into deals of 11 files for a total payable amount of Rs.3,12,00,000/-. Thus the total amount payable is Rs.10,61,00,000/-. As per the sheet, total payment of Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 31 Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act and has disallowed an amount of The AO observed that page no.23 of Annexure A-2 seized contained total amount paid fo. to Rakesh. ), Sumeet Bacchewar (Rs.5,00,000/-) ). The payments are in respect of various properties/plots and are in the form of on-money to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.1,35,00,000/- n account of unaccounted cash payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. XiThe AO observed that page no.24 of Annexure A-2 ables. One table shows details of 13 plots and the other table shows details of 11 plots (with file nos.). As regards 13 plots, the assessee has entered into deals of 13 files for a total amount of which waspayable by the assessee. ly, in respect of 11 plots, the assessee has entered into deals of 11 files for a total payable amount of . Thus the total amount payable is . As per the sheet, total payment of Rs.10,61,00,000/ Rs.1,45,00,000/ asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash that during the F.Y. 2008 were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/ unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of the IT.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/ xii. The AO observed that page no.24 per page no.25 of Annexure A- amount paid to Shri Rakesh Surve are Rs.1,62,60,000/ payment received are Rs.10,50,000/ respect of various properties/plots and are in the form of ón money payments'. Out of these amount, payment of Rs.24,20,000/ assessee to furnish the sourc supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. Accordingly, the A made addition of Rs.24,20,000/ unaccounted ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 Rs.10,61,00,000/- has been made, out of which Rs.1,45,00,000/- has been paid by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during the F.Y. 2008-09, payments of Rs. 1,45,00,000/ were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- u/s.69C on account of unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the IT.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-, The AO observed that page no.24 per page no.25 of -2 seized from Kaveri Bldg, contained that total amount paid to Shri Rakesh Surve are Rs.1,62,60,000/ payment received are Rs.10,50,000/-, The payments are in respect of various properties/plots and are in the form of ón money payments'. Out of these amount, payment of Rs.24,20,000/- pertains to F.Y. 2008-09. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. Accordingly, the A made addition of Rs.24,20,000/- u/s.69C on account of unaccounted cash payment Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 32 has been made, out of which has been paid by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation payments. The AO observed 09, payments of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made u/s.69C on account of of section 40A(3) of the IT.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. The AO observed that page no.24 per page no.25 of 2 seized from Kaveri Bldg, contained that total amount paid to Shri Rakesh Surve are Rs.1,62,60,000/- while , The payments are in respect of various properties/plots and are in the form of ón- money payments'. Out of these amount, payment of 09. The AO asked the e of payment alongwith supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. Accordingly, the A made u/s.69C on account of Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.24,20,000/ 37. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee filed before him deleted the addition to the ext ₹5,93,85,000/-and sustained the balance addition of ₹1,63,22,000/-observing as under: “(a) In point no. (i) above, the amount of Rs.2 lakhs is already been made at Sr. no. (viii) for A.Y. 2008 already made as per serial no. (v) for appellant has substantiated his claim by furnishing necessary evidence during the appellate proceedings, the addition of 3 lakhs is deleted.Further, the assessee has stated that Cheques of Rs4,00,000/ accounts. Since the appellant has substantiated his claim by furnishing necessary evidence during the appellate proceedings, the addition of Rs.7 lakhs is deleted. (b) In point no. (i Rs.63,50,000/ of Rs.7.50 lakhs. However, cash amount of Rs.56 lakhs is not explained by the appellant. Hence, addition to the tune or Rs.7.50 lakhs is deleted and Rs.56 lakhs is upheld. c)In point no. (ill) above, the AO had made Rs.65,00,000/ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.24,20,000/-.” Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee filed before him deleted the addition to the ext and sustained the balance addition of observing as under: In point no. (i) above, the amount of Rs.2 lakhs is already been made at Sr. no. (viii) for A.Y. 2008-09 and Rs. 1lakh already made as per serial no. (v) for A.Y. 2008-09. Since the appellant has substantiated his claim by furnishing necessary evidence during the appellate proceedings, the addition of 3 lakhs is deleted.Further, the assessee has stated that Cheques of Rs4,00,000/- are accounted for in the books Since the appellant has substantiated his claim by furnishing necessary evidence during the appellate proceedings, the addition of Rs.7 lakhs is deleted. In point no. (ii) above, out of the total addition of Rs. Rs.63,50,000/- the appellant was able to substantiate claim of Rs.7.50 lakhs. However, cash amount of Rs.56 lakhs is not explained by the appellant. Hence, addition to the tune or Rs.7.50 lakhs is deleted and Rs.56 lakhs is upheld. c)In point no. (ill) above, the AO had made addition of Rs. Rs.65,00,000/-on account of cash received. The appellant Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 33 Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee filed before him deleted the addition to the extent of and sustained the balance addition of In point no. (i) above, the amount of Rs.2 lakhs is already 09 and Rs. 1lakh 09. Since the appellant has substantiated his claim by furnishing necessary evidence during the appellate proceedings, the addition of 3 lakhs is deleted.Further, the assessee has stated that are accounted for in the books of Since the appellant has substantiated his claim by furnishing necessary evidence during the appellate proceedings, the ) above, out of the total addition of Rs. appellant was able to substantiate claim of Rs.7.50 lakhs. However, cash amount of Rs.56 lakhs is not explained by the appellant. Hence, addition to the tune or Rs.7.50 lakhs is deleted and Rs.56 lakhs is upheld. addition of Rs. on account of cash received. The appellant was unable to substantiate this claim of Rs.65 lakhs. Hence, the addition of Rs.65 lakhs is upheld. d)In point no. (iv) above, the addition of Rs.1,20,85,000/ already been consi being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,20,85,000/ e)In point no. (v) above, the AO had made addition of Rs. Rs. 1,30,000/- appellant was unable to substantiate this cl 1,30,000/-, Hence, the addition of Rs.1,30,000/ f)In point no. (vi) above, out of the total addition of RS. R$. 16 72.0001-(unaccounted cash payment is of Rs.2,25,000/ appellant was unable to substantiate claim of Rs.16.72 lakh Hence, the addition of Rs.16.72 lakhs is upheld. g)In point no. (vil above, the addition of Rs.4,50,000/ already been considerd at sr. no. xi. Hence, the same being repetitive, addition of Rs. 4,50,000/ h)In point no. (vil) above, the ad already been considerd at sr. no. xi. Hence, the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,18,00,000/ (i) In point no. (ix) above, the addition of Rs.56,00,000/ already been considerd at sr. no. ii. Moreover, of the paper book, it is seen that the page is a duplicate page. Hence the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.56,00,000/ deleted. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 was unable to substantiate this claim of Rs.65 lakhs. Hence, addition of Rs.65 lakhs is upheld. d)In point no. (iv) above, the addition of Rs.1,20,85,000/ already been considered in Ground no.4. Hence, the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,20,85,000/- is deleted. e)In point no. (v) above, the AO had made addition of Rs. Rs. on account of unaccount cash payment. The appellant was unable to substantiate this cl , Hence, the addition of Rs.1,30,000/- is upheld f)In point no. (vi) above, out of the total addition of RS. R$. 16 (unaccounted cash payment is of Rs.2,25,000/ appellant was unable to substantiate claim of Rs.16.72 lakh Hence, the addition of Rs.16.72 lakhs is upheld. g)In point no. (vil above, the addition of Rs.4,50,000/ already been considerd at sr. no. xi. Hence, the same being repetitive, addition of Rs. 4,50,000/-is deleted h)In point no. (vil) above, the addition of Rs.1:18,00,000/ already been considerd at sr. no. xi. Hence, the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,18,00,000/- is deleted. In point no. (ix) above, the addition of Rs.56,00,000/ already been considerd at sr. no. ii. Moreover, from verification of the paper book, it is seen that the page is a duplicate page. Hence the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.56,00,000/ Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 34 was unable to substantiate this claim of Rs.65 lakhs. Hence, d)In point no. (iv) above, the addition of Rs.1,20,85,000/- has dered in Ground no.4. Hence, the same is deleted. e)In point no. (v) above, the AO had made addition of Rs. Rs. on account of unaccount cash payment. The appellant was unable to substantiate this claim of Rs. is upheld f)In point no. (vi) above, out of the total addition of RS. R$. 16 (unaccounted cash payment is of Rs.2,25,000/-). The appellant was unable to substantiate claim of Rs.16.72 lakhs. g)In point no. (vil above, the addition of Rs.4,50,000/- has already been considerd at sr. no. xi. Hence, the same being dition of Rs.1:18,00,000/- has already been considerd at sr. no. xi. Hence, the same being is deleted. In point no. (ix) above, the addition of Rs.56,00,000/- has from verification of the paper book, it is seen that the page is a duplicate page. Hence the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.56,00,000/- is (j) In point no. (x) above, the addition of Rs.1,35,00,000/ already been considerd at sr. no. × the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,35,00,000/ deleted. k)In point no. (xi) above, the addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/ already been considered at serial no. (ji) & (vii) for A.Y. 2009 10 and at serial no. (il) para 9 f same being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/ (l) In point no. (xil) above, the AO had made addition of Rs.24,20,000/ Rs.2,25,000/ claim of Rs.24.20 lakhs. Hence, the addition of Rs.24.20 lakhs is upheld. Addition in respect of cash payment to various parties and other cash transactions has been deleted. Therefore, the alternative disallowance u/s.40A(3) is also deleted. In view of the de addition ofRs.7,57,07,000/ is deleted Accordingly, the ground no.7 of appeal is partly allowed. 13.Ground No.8 is related to addition of Rs.1,24,18,570/ made on account of"Con 6, Airoli".” 38. Before us the submission in his written synopsis, which ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 In point no. (x) above, the addition of Rs.1,35,00,000/ already been considerd at sr. no. × for A.Y. 2008 the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,35,00,000/ k)In point no. (xi) above, the addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/ already been considered at serial no. (ji) & (vii) for A.Y. 2009 10 and at serial no. (il) para 9 for A.Y.2008-09. Hence, the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/ In point no. (xil) above, the AO had made addition of Rs.24,20,000/-(unaccounted cash payment is of Rs.2,25,000/-). The appellant was unable to substantiate m of Rs.24.20 lakhs. Hence, the addition of Rs.24.20 lakhs Addition in respect of cash payment to various parties and other cash transactions has been deleted. Therefore, the alternative disallowance u/s.40A(3) is also deleted. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, out of the total addition ofRs.7,57,07,000/-, the addition of Rs.5,93,85,000/ Accordingly, the ground no.7 of appeal is partly allowed. 13.Ground No.8 is related to addition of Rs.1,24,18,570/ made on account of"Consideration received for plot 22, sector us the Ld. counsel of the assessee has made submission in his written synopsis, which is reproduced as under: Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 35 In point no. (x) above, the addition of Rs.1,35,00,000/- has for A.Y. 2008-09. Hence, the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,35,00,000/- is k)In point no. (xi) above, the addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- has already been considered at serial no. (ji) & (vii) for A.Y. 2009- 09. Hence, the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- is deleted. In point no. (xil) above, the AO had made addition of (unaccounted cash payment is of ). The appellant was unable to substantiate m of Rs.24.20 lakhs. Hence, the addition of Rs.24.20 lakhs Addition in respect of cash payment to various parties and other cash transactions has been deleted. Therefore, the alternative disallowance u/s.40A(3) is also deleted. cision of the Hon'ble ITAT, out of the total , the addition of Rs.5,93,85,000/- Accordingly, the ground no.7 of appeal is partly allowed. 13.Ground No.8 is related to addition of Rs.1,24,18,570/- sideration received for plot 22, sector of the assessee has made reproduced as under: “(i)The learned Assessing officer has made additions for Rs 63,50,000/- impounded/seized from Arenja Office, amount of Rs. 56,00,000/-paid in cash and Rs. 7,50,000 in cheque to Vinay Gosavi. (ii)The learned Assessing officer has made additions for Rs.65,00,000/ 1impounded/seized from Arenja Office, being the amounts paid to various farmers directly by Bhanwarlal Chhajer. This record has been kept by appellant's office staff as a record of transactions arranged by the appellant for the sake of taking up the matter with the landowners (iii)The learned Assessing officer has made additions for Rs. 1,30,000/- (out of total Rs. 2,30,000/ ₹1,00,000 in A.Y. 2008 Annexure A- 1,30,000/- paid to Kam.lakar S. Tandel. (this property to belonging to Kamlakar Tandel was sold to by Kaeser Khan) The cheque amount has been recorded through my account which was shown in my bank statement on 04.04.2008. All the cash amounts negotiated the deal. This record is kept by my office staff as a record of transactions arranged by me for the sake of taking up the matter with the landowners (iv)The learned Assessing officer has ma Rs.16,72,000/ impounded/seized from Arena Office, amount Rs. 12,22,000/ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 (i)The learned Assessing officer has made additions for Rs on the basis of Page 2 & 3 of Annexure A impounded/seized from Arenja Office, amount of Rs. paid in cash and Rs. 7,50,000 in cheque to Vinay (ii)The learned Assessing officer has made additions for Rs.65,00,000/- on basis ofPage 17 ofAnnexure 1impounded/seized from Arenja Office, being the amounts paid to various farmers directly by Bhanwarlal Chhajer. This record has been kept by appellant's office staff as a record of transactions arranged by the appellant for the sake of taking er with the landowners-cum-farmers. i)The learned Assessing officer has made additions for Rs. (out of total Rs. 2,30,000/- the A.O. has added 1,00,000 in A.Y. 2008-09) on basis of Page 30 & 45 of -1 impounded from Arenja Office, amount of Rs. paid to Kam.lakar S. Tandel. (this property to belonging to Kamlakar Tandel was sold to by Kaeser Khan) The cheque amount has been recorded through my account which was shown in my bank statement on 04.04.2008. All the cash amounts were paid by the buyer on behalf of whom I negotiated the deal. This record is kept by my office staff as a record of transactions arranged by me for the sake of taking up the matter with the landowners-cum-farmers. (iv)The learned Assessing officer has made additions for Rs.16,72,000/- on the basis of Page 43 & 60 of Annexure A impounded/seized from Arena Office, amount Rs. 12,22,000/ Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 36 (i)The learned Assessing officer has made additions for Rs basis of Page 2 & 3 of Annexure A-1 impounded/seized from Arenja Office, amount of Rs. paid in cash and Rs. 7,50,000 in cheque to Vinay (ii)The learned Assessing officer has made additions for on basis ofPage 17 ofAnnexureA- 1impounded/seized from Arenja Office, being the amounts paid to various farmers directly by Bhanwarlal Chhajer. This record has been kept by appellant's office staff as a record of transactions arranged by the appellant for the sake of taking i)The learned Assessing officer has made additions for Rs. the A.O. has added 09) on basis of Page 30 & 45 of mount of Rs. paid to Kam.lakar S. Tandel. (this property to belonging to Kamlakar Tandel was sold to by Kaeser Khan) The cheque amount has been recorded through my account which was shown in my bank statement on 04.04.2008. All were paid by the buyer on behalf of whom I negotiated the deal. This record is kept by my office staff as a record of transactions arranged by me for the sake of taking de additions for on the basis of Page 43 & 60 of Annexure A-3 impounded/seized from Arena Office, amount Rs. 12,22,000/- payable of Rs. 2,25,000 in cash and Rs. 14.47.000/ cheque to various farmers. This record is kept by appellant's office staff as a record of transactions arranged by me for the sake of taking up the matter with the landowners farmers. (v)The learned Assessing officer has made additions of Rs 24,20,000/- Annexure A- here that out of the above, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/ paid to Sai Ganesh Builders through cheque ng. 532361 which was duly accounted in the books of accounts on 10.10.2008. Hence the addition to the extent of Rs.15,00.000/ However the balance amount of Rs. 9,20,000/ Surve must have been paid by the purchasers through the Appellant.Therefore even in respect of this Rs. 9,20,000/ addition need in the hands of the Appellant. Hence that the entire addition of Rs. 1,63,22,000/ However in view of the facts that the appellant is a deal maker and must be earning brokerage and/or commission from the land deals intermediated through him he has already offered a disclo The detailed break up of the disclosure amount is mentioned herein above. We would like to bring to your kind attention to the Honourable Jurisdictional Mumbai ITAT'S Order no; 3496 to ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 payable of Rs. 2,25,000 in cash and Rs. 14.47.000/ cheque to various farmers. This record is kept by appellant's ce staff as a record of transactions arranged by me for the sake of taking up the matter with the landowners (v)The learned Assessing officer has made additions of Rs relating to this A.Y. on the basis Page 25 of -2 impounded from Kaveri Bldg. It is submitted here that out of the above, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/ paid to Sai Ganesh Builders through cheque ng. 532361 which was duly accounted in the books of accounts on 10.10.2008. Hence the addition to the extent of Rs.15,00.000/- is not justified. However the balance amount of Rs. 9,20,000/ Surve must have been paid by the purchasers through the Appellant.Therefore even in respect of this Rs. 9,20,000/ addition need in the hands of the Appellant. Hence that the entire addition of Rs. 1,63,22,000/- be deleted. However in view of the facts that the appellant is a deal maker and must be earning brokerage and/or commission from the land deals intermediated through him he has already offered a disclosure of ₹70 lacs to cover up the deficiency. The detailed break up of the disclosure amount is mentioned above. We would like to bring to your kind attention to the Honourable Jurisdictional Mumbai ITAT'S Order no; 3496 to Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 37 payable of Rs. 2,25,000 in cash and Rs. 14.47.000/- in cheque to various farmers. This record is kept by appellant's ce staff as a record of transactions arranged by me for the sake of taking up the matter with the landowners-cum- (v)The learned Assessing officer has made additions of Rs relating to this A.Y. on the basis Page 25 of nded from Kaveri Bldg. It is submitted here that out of the above, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been paid to Sai Ganesh Builders through cheque ng. 532361 which was duly accounted in the books of accounts on 10.10.2008. Hence the addition to the extent of However the balance amount of Rs. 9,20,000/- to Rakesh Surve must have been paid by the purchasers through the Appellant.Therefore even in respect of this Rs. 9,20,000/- no addition need in the hands of the Appellant. Hence we pray be deleted. However in view of the facts that the appellant is a deal maker and must be earning brokerage and/or commission from the land deals intermediated through him he has already 70 lacs to cover up the deficiency. The detailed break up of the disclosure amount is mentioned We would like to bring to your kind attention to the Honourable Jurisdictional Mumbai ITAT'S Order no; 3496 to 3498 and 4794/4795 dated 1 own case for the earlier years of Block period AY. 2003 2007-08 at paragraph no: 3, 19, 27 and 39 of the aforesaid order on account of cash/ unaccounted transaction cannot be made and hence be deleted. 39. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the authorities. 40. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Tribunal (supra) in assessment year 2003 held the assessee as dealmaker only transactions have been held to be carried out by the assessee on behalf of the prospective buyers/sellers of the land. Before us the Ld. counsel of the assessee has also submitted that has kept record of the transaction of the dealings between the developers of the lands and the farmers for the sake of taking up the matter with the landowners cum farmers only. We find that no enquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer from farmers are from rural land developers regarding the cash component of the transactions nor any adverse finding of investigation wing has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of assessee has been held to be only dealmaker is reproduced as under: ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 3498 and 4794/4795 dated 19.08.2016 in the appellant's own case for the earlier years of Block period AY. 2003 08 at paragraph no: 3, 19, 27 and 39 of the aforesaid order on account of cash/ unaccounted transaction cannot be made and hence be deleted.” the other hand relied on the order of the We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that ribunal (supra) in assessment year 2003-04 to 2008 held the assessee as dealmaker only and the all the cash transactions have been held to be carried out by the assessee on behalf of the prospective buyers/sellers of the land. Before us the of the assessee has also submitted that has kept record of the transaction of the dealings between the developers of the lands and the farmers for the sake of taking up the matter with the landowners cum farmers only. We find that no enquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer from farmers are from rural land developers regarding the cash component of the transactions nor any adverse finding of investigation wing has been brought on record by the Assessing The relevant finding of Tribunal (supra) ssee has been held to be only dealmaker is reproduced as Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 38 9.08.2016 in the appellant's own case for the earlier years of Block period AY. 2003-04 TO 08 at paragraph no: 3, 19, 27 and 39 of the aforesaid order on account of cash/ unaccounted transaction cannot be the other hand relied on the order of the lower We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that 04 to 2008-09 has the all the cash transactions have been held to be carried out by the assessee on behalf of the prospective buyers/sellers of the land. Before us the of the assessee has also submitted that the assessee has kept record of the transaction of the dealings between the developers of the lands and the farmers for the sake of taking up the matter with the landowners cum farmers only. We find that no enquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer from either the farmers are from rural land developers regarding the cash component of the transactions nor any adverse finding of investigation wing has been brought on record by the Assessing (supra), wherein the ssee has been held to be only dealmaker is reproduced as “3.2 Same has been opposed before us inter alia submitting that CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the estimation of turnover and profit thereon at Rs. 15,22,780/ Representative submitted that addition in question is not justified by way of making estimation of turnover and profit thereon. Assessing Officer has not given actual working as to how the estimated turnover of Rs.38,06,951/ The stand of deceased deal in Navi suitablelocations of CIDCO plots belonging to different farmers, get them properly allotted to them and enter into MoUs with them for sale of the said plots of land to th Estate developers who were in need of these plots. It was clarified that though he was not buying and selling the plots on his own, yet he, as a broker, negotiated the deals between the seller-cum builders. Sinc amount of commission in the Real Estate deals made through him. Deceased assessee was doing said business for developers/investor as stated above.Assessing Officer did not agree with the concept of commission agency b Since, Assessing Officer did not accept the books of account, so, he estimated the turnover and profit thereon.Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that theseadditions are not based on the seized materials at the time of search as discussed above, but only on the basis of cash flow statement prepared by assessee irrespective of correlation to search material. So, addition in question has no nexus with search ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 3.2 Same has been opposed before us inter alia submitting that CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the estimation of turnover and profit thereon at Rs. 15,22,780/-. Ld. Authorized tative submitted that addition in question is not justified by way of making estimation of turnover and profit thereon. Assessing Officer has not given actual working as to how the estimated turnover of Rs.38,06,951/- was calculated. The stand of deceased assessee has been that he used to deal in Navi-Mumbai areas.He used to identify those suitablelocations of CIDCO plots belonging to different farmers, get them properly allotted to them and enter into MoUs with them for sale of the said plots of land to th Estate developers who were in need of these plots. It was clarified that though he was not buying and selling the plots on his own, yet he, as a broker, negotiated the deals between cum-farmers and the buyers-cum builders. Since, deceased assessee earned reasonable amount of commission in the Real Estate deals made through him. Deceased assessee was doing said business for developers/investor as stated above.Assessing Officer did not agree with the concept of commission agency b Since, Assessing Officer did not accept the books of account, so, he estimated the turnover and profit thereon.Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that theseadditions are not based on the seized materials at the time of search as above, but only on the basis of cash flow statement prepared by assessee irrespective of correlation to search material. So, addition in question has no nexus with search Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 39 3.2 Same has been opposed before us inter alia submitting that CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the estimation of . Ld. Authorized tative submitted that addition in question is not justified by way of making estimation of turnover and profit thereon. Assessing Officer has not given actual working as to was calculated. assessee has been that he used to Mumbai areas.He used to identify those suitablelocations of CIDCO plots belonging to different farmers, get them properly allotted to them and enter into MoUs with them for sale of the said plots of land to the Real Estate developers who were in need of these plots. It was clarified that though he was not buying and selling the plots on his own, yet he, as a broker, negotiated the deals between cum-developers- e, deceased assessee earned reasonable amount of commission in the Real Estate deals made through him. Deceased assessee was doing said business for developers/investor as stated above.Assessing Officer did not agree with the concept of commission agency by assessee. Since, Assessing Officer did not accept the books of account, so, he estimated the turnover and profit thereon.Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that theseadditions are not based on the seized materials at the time of search as above, but only on the basis of cash flow statement prepared by assessee irrespective of correlation to search material. So, addition in question has no nexus with search material, so, addition is not justified in view of decision of All Cargo Global Logis in the assessment us. 153A of the Act addition should have nexus with seized material found at the time of search. Without prejudice to above, estimation of turnover and profit thereon in question is also not ba record.Agreeing to alternative contention of assessee, we find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by assessee in his name. It could have been corroborated by Assessing Officer with real instances of transaction which has not been done by him. In such situation, assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on money transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. 40.1 Respectfully following the finding of the addition sustained by the L is hereby deleted. The assessee is accordingly allowed. 41. The Ground No. 4 of the appeal relates to addition of ₹20,34,625/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), against the additio ₹1,24,18,570/-which was made by the Assessing Officer in relation to plot No. 22, Sector 2 from Kaveri building. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 material, so, addition is not justified in view of decision of All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. So, in the proceedings after search in the assessment us. 153A of the Act addition should have nexus with seized material found at the time of search. Without prejudice to above, estimation of turnover and profit thereon in question is also not based on material on record.Agreeing to alternative contention of assessee, we find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by assessee in his name. It could have been corroborated by Assessing Officer with real instances of transaction which has not been done by him. In such assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on money transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted.” following the finding of the Tribunal(supra), the sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of cash transactions is hereby deleted. The ground No. three of the appeal of the accordingly allowed. The Ground No. 4 of the appeal relates to addition of sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), against the additio which was made by the Assessing Officer in relation Sector Six, Airoli relying on page No. 49of Annexure 2 from Kaveri building. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 40 material, so, addition is not justified in view of decision of All tic Ltd. So, in the proceedings after search in the assessment us. 153A of the Act addition should have nexus with seized material found at the time of search. Without prejudice to above, estimation of turnover and profit sed on material on record.Agreeing to alternative contention of assessee, we find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by assessee in his name. It could have been corroborated by Assessing Officer with real instances of transaction which has not been done by him. In such assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on money transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not ribunal(supra), the d. CIT(A) in respect of cash transactions No. three of the appeal of the The Ground No. 4 of the appeal relates to addition of sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), against the addition of which was made by the Assessing Officer in relation , Airoli relying on page No. 49of Annexure - 41.1 Regarding the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “13.3 The facts of the the Assessment Order and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. The AO observed that page no 49 of Annexure 2 seized from Kaveri Bldg showed allotment of certain properties to the assessee aga Airoli. Total value of 4 flats in 'Muktai' on plot 6A, Sec.6, Koparkhairane is worked out at Rs.31,27.580/ in Raj Uday Society on plot 109, sec. 1, Sampada worked out at Rs.80,56,500/ 84, Sec. 1, Sanpada worked out at Rs. 12,34,490/. Thus, the total value of all these properties against part consideration of plot no.22, sector 6, Airoli was Rs.1,24,18,570/ addition of Rs.1,24,18,570 unaccounted/undisclosed income of the assessee. The appellant has stated that the A.O. has made this addition as unexplained investment, based upon Page no. 49 of Annexure-2 seized from Kaveri Building.However, it was the proposal made by in sector-6, Airoli and such proposals did not materialized as they were not accepted by the builder. Hence, no addition could be made only on the basis of a proposal which never materialized. Further, the app additions are to be made then addition of Rs.20,34,625/ made since, the value of the flat requested to be allotted to the appellant was only Rs.20.34.625/ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 Regarding the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: 13.3 The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment Order and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. The AO observed that page no 49 of Annexure 2 seized from Kaveri Bldg showed allotment of certain properties to the assessee against part consideration of plot no.22 sector 6, Airoli. Total value of 4 flats in 'Muktai' on plot 6A, Sec.6, Koparkhairane is worked out at Rs.31,27.580/-; that of 4 flats in Raj Uday Society on plot 109, sec. 1, Sampada worked out at Rs.80,56,500/- and that of 1 flat in Sairaj Aptt on plot 83 & 84, Sec. 1, Sanpada worked out at Rs. 12,34,490/. Thus, the total value of all these properties against part consideration of plot no.22, sector 6, Airoli was Rs.1,24,18,570/-, The A made addition of Rs.1,24,18,570/- on account of unaccounted/undisclosed income of the assessee. The appellant has stated that the A.O. has made this addition as unexplained investment, based upon Page no. 49 of 2 seized from Kaveri Building.However, it was the proposal made by the appellant to settle dispute for plot no.22 6, Airoli and such proposals did not materialized as they were not accepted by the builder. Hence, no addition could be made only on the basis of a proposal which never materialized. Further, the appellant has stated that if at all additions are to be made then addition of Rs.20,34,625/ made since, the value of the flat requested to be allotted to the appellant was only Rs.20.34.625/- Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 41 Regarding the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: case and findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment Order and the written submissions of the The AO observed that page no 49 of Annexure 2 seized from Kaveri Bldg showed allotment of certain properties to the inst part consideration of plot no.22 sector 6, Airoli. Total value of 4 flats in 'Muktai' on plot 6A, Sec.6, ; that of 4 flats in Raj Uday Society on plot 109, sec. 1, Sampada worked out hat of 1 flat in Sairaj Aptt on plot 83 & 84, Sec. 1, Sanpada worked out at Rs. 12,34,490/. Thus, the total value of all these properties against part consideration of , The A made on account of unaccounted/undisclosed income of the assessee. The appellant has stated that the A.O. has made this addition as unexplained investment, based upon Page no. 49 of 2 seized from Kaveri Building.However, it was the the appellant to settle dispute for plot no.22 6, Airoli and such proposals did not materialized as they were not accepted by the builder. Hence, no addition could be made only on the basis of a proposal which never ellant has stated that if at all additions are to be made then addition of Rs.20,34,625/- is to made since, the value of the flat requested to be allotted to the It is seen rom page 49 af affickale R2 iTher the name of Shr Suni Guatappears at sr.no 4 of the project, MIs. Raj Uday Co operative Housing Soc. Ltd bearing flat 1001 amounting to Rs.20,34,625/ name of the appellant in this loose paper. Therefore, addition of Rs.20.34. remaining addition of Rs.1,03,83,945/ any further inquiry about whether such flais were acquired by the appellant or not. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs.1.03,83,945/ Accordingly, the ground no.8 of appeal is partly allowed. 42. Before us on behalf of the assessee under: “The Appellant, in the course of his business activity, had struck an understanding for the development of a society plot at Plot No. 22 in sector op. Hsg. Society, around 20 years ago. Accordingly in the said proposed building flats were booked for others also i.e. for outsiders other than the members of the cooperative housing society. However, the said project did not take off for a long time. Hence, the society members approached another builder namely M/s. Raj H 425, Arenja Corner, Plot No. 71, Sector Mumbai, for the development of the Society plot. That builder agreed to take over the Society plot for development but agreed to allot flats in other projects bel persons for whom the Appellant had booked the flats.Since, ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 s seen rom page 49 af affickale R2 iTher the name of Shr Suni Guatappears at sr.no 4 of the project, MIs. Raj Uday Co operative Housing Soc. Ltd bearing flat 1001 amounting to Rs.20,34,625/-. Thus, there was a specific reference of the name of the appellant in this loose paper. Therefore, addition of Rs.20.34.625/- is sustained. However, in respect of the remaining addition of Rs.1,03,83,945/-, the AO has not made any further inquiry about whether such flais were acquired by the appellant or not. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs.1.03,83,945/- is deleted. Accordingly, the ground no.8 of appeal is partly allowed. us on behalf of the assessee, it has been submitted as The Appellant, in the course of his business activity, had struck an understanding for the development of a society plot at Plot No. 22 in sector - 6 Airoli, belonging to Shri. Sai Raj Co op. Hsg. Society, around 20 years ago. Accordingly in the said sed building flats were booked for others also i.e. for outsiders other than the members of the cooperative housing society. However, the said project did not take off for a long time. Hence, the society members approached another builder namely M/s. Raj Homes Udayvansh Builders & Developers, 425, Arenja Corner, Plot No. 71, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, for the development of the Society plot. That builder agreed to take over the Society plot for development but agreed to allot flats in other projects belonging to his group to persons for whom the Appellant had booked the flats.Since, Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 42 s seen rom page 49 af affickale R2 iTher the name of Shri Suni Guatappears at sr.no 4 of the project, MIs. Raj Uday Co- operative Housing Soc. Ltd bearing flat 1001 amounting to . Thus, there was a specific reference of the name of the appellant in this loose paper. Therefore, addition is sustained. However, in respect of the , the AO has not made any further inquiry about whether such flais were acquired by the appellant or not. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Accordingly, the ground no.8 of appeal is partly allowed.” it has been submitted as The Appellant, in the course of his business activity, had struck an understanding for the development of a society plot 6 Airoli, belonging to Shri. Sai Raj Co- op. Hsg. Society, around 20 years ago. Accordingly in the said sed building flats were booked for others also i.e. for outsiders other than the members of the cooperative housing society. However, the said project did not take off for a long time. Hence, the society members approached another builder omes Udayvansh Builders & Developers, 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, for the development of the Society plot. That builder agreed to take over the Society plot for development but onging to his group to persons for whom the Appellant had booked the flats.Since, the Appellant had earlier identified the members of the cooperative housing society and unified them togetherandconvinced them for the redevelopment of the Society plot, the far made by him, had requested for an allotment of one flat for himself, in the Raj Uday Cooperative Housing Society Building, from the said builder. It is only the said proposal of the Appellant's request contained in Page no.49 of Annexure Building However the builder M/s Raj Homes Udayvansh Builders & Developers had not agreed to give one flat requested for by the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant did not receive any flat from as MIs Raj Homes Udayvansh Builders & Developers has not allotted any flat to the Appellant. This fact can be verified from the said builder M/s Raj Homes Udavansh Builders & Developers himself or from the Housing Society concerned. NO addition can be made in the assessment on account of the alleged purchase of the said flat, ONLY on the basis of a proposal which never materialized. Hence. it is prayed that the addition confirmed in this regard to the extent of Rs. 20,34,625/ 43. Before us the ld. Counsel of the assessee has also filed additional evidence that the allottees of said flat are different ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 the Appellant had earlier identified the members of the cooperative housing society and unified them togetherandconvinced them for the redevelopment of the Society plot, the Appellant, as a consideration for his efforts so far made by him, had requested for an allotment of one flat for himself, in the Raj Uday Cooperative Housing Society Building, from the said builder. It is only the said proposal of the Appellant's request contained in Page no.49 of Annexure-2, seized from Kaveri Building However the builder M/s Raj Homes Udayvansh Builders & Developers had not agreed to give one flat requested for by the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant did not receive any flat from as MIs Raj Homes Udayvansh Builders & Developers has not allotted any flat to the Appellant. This fact can be verified from the said builder M/s Raj Homes Udavansh Builders & Developers himself or from the Housing Society concerned. n can be made in the assessment on account of the alleged purchase of the said flat, ONLY on the basis of a proposal which never materialized. Hence. it is prayed that the addition confirmed in this regard to the extent of Rs. 20,34,625/- should be deleted Before us the ld. Counsel of the assessee has also filed additional evidence that the allottees of said flat are different Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 43 the Appellant had earlier identified the members of the cooperative housing society and unified them togetherandconvinced them for the redevelopment of the Appellant, as a consideration for his efforts so far made by him, had requested for an allotment of one flat for himself, in the Raj Uday Cooperative Housing Society It is only the said proposal of the Appellant's request that is 2, seized from Kaveri Building However the builder M/s Raj Homes Udayvansh Builders & Developers had not agreed to give one flat Hence, the Appellant did not receive any flat from the builder, as MIs Raj Homes Udayvansh Builders & Developers has not This fact can be verified from the said builder M/s Raj Homes Udavansh Builders & Developers himself or from the Housing n can be made in the assessment on account of the alleged purchase of the said flat, ONLY on the basis of a Hence. it is prayed that the addition confirmed in this regard should be deleted.” Before us the ld. Counsel of the assessee has also filed additional evidence that the allottees of said flat are different persons and not the assessee. The assessee has filed an information downloaded from the web under: ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 persons and not the assessee. The assessee has filed an information downloaded from the web-site of the CIDCO, which is extrac Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 44 persons and not the assessee. The assessee has filed an information site of the CIDCO, which is extracted as 44. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. Before us the ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed additional evidence to support that said flat was never allotted proposal, which never materia by the widow of the demised assessee i.e. legal heir, we feel it appropriate to admit the additional evidence and restore the matter to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for necessary verification from ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. Before us the ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed additional evidence to support that said flat was never allotted to the assessee and it was merely a which never materialized. In view of the evidence collected by the widow of the demised assessee i.e. legal heir, we feel it appropriate to admit the additional evidence and restore the matter to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for necessary verification from Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 45 have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. Before us the ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed additional evidence to support to the assessee and it was merely a ed. In view of the evidence collected by the widow of the demised assessee i.e. legal heir, we feel it appropriate to admit the additional evidence and restore the matter to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for necessary verification from the relevant authorities regarding allotment of concerned flat and then decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee/legal heir of assessee. The ground of the appeal of the assessee accordingly allowed for the statistical purposes. 45. The ground No. ₹16,93,750/-on account of cash found during the course of the search sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 46. The facts qua the issue in dispute that rega cash of Rs.16,93,780/ assessee being engaged in the real estate and property dealer in the Navi Mumbai area, where most of the plots are purchased from villagers, it was normal to keep amount of cash i to 15 lakh. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee also submitted that during the course of statement recorded on 19/02/2009, the assessee stated that cash found was out of withdrawal from his regular bank account and from his sale parties landowners. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee failed to substantiate details of withdrawals along with supporting evidence and therefore Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition. Before us the ld Counsel of the assessee submitted that due to demise o assessee, his legal heir who is his widow is making attempt to collect necessary evidence and therefore matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer afresh. The ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 authorities regarding allotment of concerned flat and then decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee/legal heir of assessee. The ground of the appeal of the assessee ly allowed for the statistical purposes. The ground No. 5 of the appeal relates to addition of on account of cash found during the course of the search sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). The facts qua the issue in dispute that regarding the 780/- on from the assessee, it was submitted th assessee being engaged in the real estate and property dealer in the Navi Mumbai area, where most of the plots are purchased from villagers, it was normal to keep amount of cash in the range of to 15 lakh. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee also submitted that during the course of statement recorded on 19/02/2009, the assessee stated that cash found was out of withdrawal from his regular bank account and from his sale parties landowners. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee failed to substantiate details of withdrawals along with supporting evidence and therefore Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition. Before us the ld l of the assessee submitted that due to demise o assessee, his legal heir who is his widow is making attempt to collect necessary evidence and therefore matter may be restored to Assessing Officer afresh. The Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 46 authorities regarding allotment of concerned flat and then decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee/legal heir of assessee. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is of the appeal relates to addition of on account of cash found during the course of the rding the source of on from the assessee, it was submitted that assessee being engaged in the real estate and property dealer in the Navi Mumbai area, where most of the plots are purchased from n the range of ₹ 10 to 15 lakh. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee also submitted that during the course of statement recorded on 19/02/2009, the assessee stated that cash found was out of withdrawal from his regular bank account and from his sale parties for payment to landowners. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee failed to substantiate details of withdrawals along with supporting evidence and therefore Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition. Before us the ld l of the assessee submitted that due to demise of the assessee, his legal heir who is his widow is making attempt to collect necessary evidence and therefore matter may be restored to Assessing Officer afresh. The Ld. DR on the Contra, submitted that already enough opportunity has be provided to the assessee, so addition should be upheld. 47. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. We find that the assessee had already stated source of cash found as out of withdrawal from bank accounts and advance from landowners or purchase a plot. Before us, the the assessee has given undertaking that the legal heir of the assessee has agreed for collecting evidence from the banks and from the landowners to support of the availability of cash in the hands of the assessee. We are of the opinion that the interest of substantial justice one more opportunity should be allowed to the legal hair of the assessee to substantiate the source of cash found from the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the finding o CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary evidence in support of source of the cash availa statement in the form of the cash book. The ground No. the appeal of the assessee purposes. 48. The ground No. addition confirmed by Ld. CI jewelry of ₹16,81,573/ by the Assessing Officer. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 Contra, submitted that already enough opportunity has be provided to the assessee, so addition should be upheld. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. We find that the assessee had already stated source of cash found as out of withdrawal from bank accounts and advance m landowners or purchase a plot. Before us, the the assessee has given undertaking that the legal heir of the assessee has agreed for collecting evidence from the banks and from the landowners to support of the availability of cash in the nds of the assessee. We are of the opinion that the interest of substantial justice one more opportunity should be allowed to the legal hair of the assessee to substantiate the source of cash found from the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the finding o CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to the file Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary evidence in support of source of the cash availability along with cash statement in the form of the cash book. The ground No. the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical The ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee relates to addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) for unexplained investment in 573/-against the addition made of by the Assessing Officer. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 47 Contra, submitted that already enough opportunity has been provided to the assessee, so addition should be upheld. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. We find that the assessee had already stated source of cash found as out of withdrawal from bank accounts and advance m landowners or purchase a plot. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has given undertaking that the legal heir of the assessee has agreed for collecting evidence from the banks and from the landowners to support of the availability of cash in the nds of the assessee. We are of the opinion that the interest of substantial justice one more opportunity should be allowed to the legal hair of the assessee to substantiate the source of cash found from the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to the file Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary evidence bility along with cash statement in the form of the cash book. The ground No. 5 (five) of accordingly allowed for statistical of the appeal of the assessee relates to T(A) for unexplained investment in against the addition made of ₹33,63,147/- 49. The facts qua the issue in dispute of the search action total jewelry of jewelry of ₹14,57,538/ from the residence of the assessee. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee explained that in addition to the normal jewelry which could be available with family members according to circular, jewelry was received by the wife of the assessee from her parents and his mother who expired in the year 2007. The l Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and divided the 50% of the jewelry in the hands of the asses minor son and balance 50% jewelry in the hands of his wife and his daughter, and accordingly computed unexplained investment of the assessee ₹16,81,574/ the assessment order, the Assessing Officer add the jewelry of ₹33,63, CIT(A) accordingly deleted the balance addition and sustain addition to the extent of the 50. Before us, the benefit of the jewelry as per the CBDT instruction No. 1916 dated 11/05/1994, the assessee jewelry in respect of his wife, 250 g and 100 grams each for the assessee and a son. He further submitted that balance if any can be explained by way of disclosure ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 The facts qua the issue in dispute are that during the course of the search action total jewelry of ₹33,63,147/-including dia 538/-and bullion worth ₹6,16,000/ from the residence of the assessee. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee explained that in addition to the normal jewelry which could be available with family members according to circular, jewelry was received by the wife of the assessee from her parents and his mother who expired in the year 2007. The l Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and divided the 50% of the jewelry in the hands of the asses minor son and balance 50% jewelry in the hands of his wife and his daughter, and accordingly computed unexplained investment of the 81,574/-however in the computation of the income in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer added entire amount of 33,63,147/-in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the balance addition and sustain addition to the extent of the ₹16,81,574/-. the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that nefit of the jewelry as per the CBDT instruction No. 1916 dated the assessee should be allowed 500 g jewelry in respect of his wife, 250 grams for his unmarried daughter and 100 grams each for the assessee and a son. He further itted that balance if any can be explained by way of disclosure Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 48 that during the course including diamond 16,000/- was found from the residence of the assessee. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee explained that in addition to the normal jewelry which could be available with family members according to the CBDT circular, jewelry was received by the wife of the assessee from her parents and his mother who expired in the year 2007. The ld. Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and divided the 50% of the jewelry in the hands of the assessee and his minor son and balance 50% jewelry in the hands of his wife and his daughter, and accordingly computed unexplained investment of the however in the computation of the income in ed entire amount of in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the balance addition and sustained of the assessee submitted that nefit of the jewelry as per the CBDT instruction No. 1916 dated hould be allowed 500 grams of gold for his unmarried daughter and 100 grams each for the assessee and a son. He further itted that balance if any can be explained by way of disclosure of ₹ 70 lakh made by the assessee assessment year 2008 51. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. 52. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant middle of record. We find that the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case Cit Vs Ratanlal Vyarilal Jain (2010)(7) TMI 769 (Guj); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT(Central), Kanpur Vs M/s Ghanshyam Das Johri (2013)(10)TMI 1187 ( Allahabad HC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kailash Chnad Sharma (2004)(7) TMI 647( Rajasthan High Court) have consistently held that the position of the jewelry of the quantities specified in the instruction issued by the CBDT is reasonable and therefore should be held to be explained in the hands of the assessee and should not be subject matter of the addition by the AO on the ground that assessee was unable to explain the possession thereof to his satisfaction. Further, Tribunal Bench Chandigarh in the case of Smt Neena Syal V (1998)(9) TMI 114 and Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case Mrs Nawaz Singhania Vs DCIT Central treated the amount of the jewelry as per CBDT instruction (supra) as explained in the hand of an assessee. In view of the a precedents, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for allowing benefit of jewel ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 made by the assessee, which has been offered to tax for assessment year 2008-09 and assessment year 2009 on the other hand relied on the order of the lower We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant middle of record. We find that the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case Cit Vs Ratanlal Vyarilal Jain (2010)(7) TMI 769 (Guj); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT(Central), Kanpur Vs M/s Ghanshyam Das Johri (2013)(10)TMI 1187 ( Allahabad HC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High the case of CIT Vs Kailash Chnad Sharma (2004)(7) TMI 647( Rajasthan High Court) have consistently held that the position of the jewelry of the quantities specified in the instruction issued by the CBDT is reasonable and therefore should be held to be lained in the hands of the assessee and should not be subject matter of the addition by the AO on the ground that assessee was unable to explain the possession thereof to his satisfaction. Further, Bench Chandigarh in the case of Smt Neena Syal V (1998)(9) TMI 114 and Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case Mrs Nawaz Singhania Vs DCIT Central Circle(2018)(1) TMI 21has also treated the amount of the jewelry as per CBDT instruction (supra) s explained in the hand of an assessee. In view of the a , we feel it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for allowing benefit of jewel Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 49 , which has been offered to tax for 09 and assessment year 2009-10. on the other hand relied on the order of the lower We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant middle of record. We find that the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case Cit Vs Ratanlal Vyarilal Jain (2010)(7) TMI 769 (Guj); Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT(Central), Kanpur Vs M/s Ghanshyam Das Johri (2013)(10)TMI 1187 ( Allahabad HC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High the case of CIT Vs Kailash Chnad Sharma (2004)(7) TMI 647( Rajasthan High Court) have consistently held that the position of the jewelry of the quantities specified in the instruction issued by the CBDT is reasonable and therefore should be held to be lained in the hands of the assessee and should not be subject matter of the addition by the AO on the ground that assessee was unable to explain the possession thereof to his satisfaction. Further, Bench Chandigarh in the case of Smt Neena Syal Vs ACIT (1998)(9) TMI 114 and Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case Mrs Circle(2018)(1) TMI 21has also treated the amount of the jewelry as per CBDT instruction (supra) s explained in the hand of an assessee. In view of the above , we feel it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for allowing benefit of jewelery as per the CBDT instruction (supra) in accordance with law and also examine the claim of the assessee in respect of the balance amount of the jewelry if any out of the disclosure of Rs. 70 been made by the assessee for assessment year 2008 10. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 52.1 In modified ground No. seven, the assessee has challenged addition of ₹3,33,62,724/ 68 of the Act out of t Assessing Officer. 52.2 During the course of the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and thereafter taking into consideration written submission of the assessee, sustained addition of “16.3 The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment Order, remand report and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. i)In the case of loan of Associates, it pertained to earlier year. Therefore, no addition is to be made during the year. ii) In the case of loan of Rs.15,00,000/ Enterprises pertained to earlier year. Therefore, no to be made during the year. ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 CBDT instruction (supra) in accordance with law and also examine the claim of the assessee in respect of the balance amount of the jewelry if any out of the disclosure of Rs. 70 lakhs been made by the assessee for assessment year 2008 the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. In modified ground No. seven, the assessee has challenged 724/-confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section ct out of the addition of ₹5,12,94,285/ During the course of the first appellate proceeding remand report from the Assessing Officer and thereafter taking into consideration written submission of the addition of ₹3,33,62,724/-observing as under: 16.3 The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment Order, remand report and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. i)In the case of loan of Rs.2,71,00,000/- given to MIs. Madan Associates, it pertained to earlier year. Therefore, no addition is to be made during the year. In the case of loan of Rs.15,00,000/- given to Mis. Rishi Enterprises pertained to earlier year. Therefore, no to be made during the year. Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 50 CBDT instruction (supra) in accordance with law and also examine the claim of the assessee in respect of the balance amount of the claimed to have been made by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009- the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed In modified ground No. seven, the assessee has challenged confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section /- made by the proceeding, theLd. remand report from the Assessing Officer and thereafter taking into consideration written submission of the observing as under: 16.3 The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment Order, remand report and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. given to MIs. Madan Associates, it pertained to earlier year. Therefore, no addition given to Mis. Rishi Enterprises pertained to earlier year. Therefore, no addition is iii) In the case of loan of Rs.2,16,00,000/ Mahavir Universal Homes Put. Ltd. As per the ledger account, the appellant has received an amount of Rs.45,00,000/ during the year from the said party. Out of Rs.8,81,561/ amount shown as liability.However, as per the bank statement, the appellant has received an amount of Rs.80,00,000/ the appellate proce confirmation of loan and other supporting evidences.Therefore, addition of Rs.2,16,00,000/ iv) In the case of loan of Rs. 11,50,000/ Brothers, the AO had issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Ac the appellant has filed confirmation from the said party. Therefore, this loan is held as genuine. v) In respect of amount of Rs.5,92,918/ Prerna Enterprises.The appellant has submitted before the AO that the said sum was payable society formation and other legal charges which was subsequently paid. The assessee has filed sale deed which may be considered. regard vi) In respect of amount of Rs.90,00,000/ Narayan Trading, the appellant has filed MOU dated 24.07.2008 before the AO, wherein this amount 18.02.2009. Even during the appellate proceeding, the ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 In the case of loan of Rs.2,16,00,000/- given to MIs. Mahavir Universal Homes Put. Ltd. As per the ledger account, the appellant has received an amount of Rs.45,00,000/ during the year from the said party. Out of which an amount of Rs.8,81,561/- was paid to villagers and the remaining amount shown as liability.However, as per the bank statement, the appellant has received an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- during the year from the said party. During the appellate proceedings, the AR has also not submitted confirmation of loan and other supporting evidences.Therefore, addition of Rs.2,16,00,000/- is upheld. In the case of loan of Rs. 11,50,000/- to M/s. Chandra Brothers, the AO had issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Ac the appellant has filed confirmation from the said party. Therefore, this loan is held as genuine. In respect of amount of Rs.5,92,918/- given to MIs. Guru Prerna Enterprises.The appellant has submitted before the AO that the said sum was payable to the developers towards society formation and other legal charges which was subsequently paid. The assessee has filed sale deed which may be considered. Therefore, no addition can be made in this ) In respect of amount of Rs.90,00,000/- given to Narayan Trading, the appellant has filed MOU dated 24.07.2008 before the AO, wherein this amount 18.02.2009. Even during the appellate proceeding, the Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 51 given to MIs. Mahavir Universal Homes Put. Ltd. As per the ledger account, the appellant has received an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- of which an amount was paid to villagers and the remaining amount shown as liability.However, as per the bank statement, the appellant has received an amount of during the year from the said party. During edings, the AR has also not submitted confirmation of loan and other supporting evidences.Therefore, to M/s. Chandra Brothers, the AO had issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and the appellant has filed confirmation from the said party. given to MIs. Guru Prerna Enterprises.The appellant has submitted before the AO to the developers towards society formation and other legal charges which was subsequently paid. The assessee has filed sale deed which Therefore, no addition can be made in this given to MIs. Narayan Trading, the appellant has filed MOU dated 24.07.2008 before the AO, wherein this amount i.e. 18.02.2009. Even during the appellate proceeding, the appellant has not justified that these expenses were incurred exclusively for the business pur In view of the above discussion, addition of Rs.30,557/ on account of certain expenses is upheld. Accordingly, ground no. 12 of the appeal is dismissed. 53. We have heard rival submission dispute and perused addition of ₹2,16,00, homes Private Limited, the that addition for this amount has already been made in assessment year 2008-09. He submitted that by the Assessing Officer been deleted by the Ld.(CIT(A) and therefore no addition should have been made in the year under consideration. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2008 para 11.4(iii) the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the unexplained credit of ₹2,16,00,000/- in respect of M/s Mahavir Limited. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “11.4The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the AssessmentOrder, remand report of AO and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. i. ................... ii. ........................ ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 appellant has not justified that these expenses were incurred exclusively for the business purpose. In view of the above discussion, addition of Rs.30,557/ on account of certain expenses is upheld. Accordingly, ground no. 12 of the appeal is dismissed. have heard rival submissions of the parties perused relevant material on record. Regarding the 2,16,00,000/-pertaining to m/s Mah homes Private Limited, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that addition for this amount has already been made in assessment bmitted that the said loan had been confirmed Assessing Officer in assessment year 2008 been deleted by the Ld.(CIT(A) and therefore no addition should have been made in the year under consideration. On perusal of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2008-09 , we find that in para 11.4(iii) the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the unexplained credit of in respect of M/s Mahavir Universal Homes Limited. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as 11.4The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the AssessmentOrder, remand report of AO and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. ................... ........................ Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 52 appellant has not justified that these expenses were incurred In view of the above discussion, addition of Rs.30,557/-made Accordingly, ground no. 12 of the appeal is dismissed.” ies on the issue in record. Regarding the pertaining to m/s Mahavir Universal of the assessee submitted that addition for this amount has already been made in assessment the said loan had been confirmed in assessment year 2008-09, which has been deleted by the Ld.(CIT(A) and therefore no addition should have been made in the year under consideration. On perusal of the 09 , we find that in para 11.4(iii) the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the unexplained credit of Universal Homes Private Limited. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as 11.4The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the AssessmentOrder, remand report of AO and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. iii. In the case of loan of Rs.2,16,00,000/ M/s. Mahavir appellant has filed confirmation from the said party and also submitted copy of ROl, bank statement etc. before the AO. Therefore, this loan is held as genuine iv. .................... v. ...................... vi. ...................... ........................... Accordingly, the ground 53.1 In view of the above verification, the claim of the assessee is accepted and the addition in dispute the year under consideration is deleted. 53.2 Regarding the amount of Narayan Niryat India Private Limited, the assessee submitted that it is a trade advance for which a copy of the MOU dated 24/07/2008 confirming the same is already placed on record. The remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer paperbook page 107 to 115 filed, the amount represented as advance received from said party for sale/assigning development right of a plot. We are the opin that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that amount in ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 In the case of loan of Rs.2,16,00,000/ M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd, the appellant has filed confirmation from the said party and also submitted copy of ROl, bank statement etc. before the AO. Therefore, this loan is held as genuine ..................... ....................... ...................... ........................... Accordingly, the ground no.6 of appeal is partly allowed. (emphasis supplied externally) In view of the above verification, the claim of the assessee is the addition in dispute of Rs. 2,16,00,000/ the year under consideration is deleted. Regarding the amount of ₹90,00,000/-pertaining to Mrs Niryat India Private Limited, the assessee submitted that it is a trade advance for which a copy of the MOU dated 24/07/2008 confirming the same is already placed on record. The remand report mitted by the Assessing Officer, a copy of which is plac paperbook page 107 to 115, also confirmed that as per the MOU filed, the amount represented as advance received from said party for sale/assigning development right of a plot. We are the opin that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that amount in Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 53 In the case of loan of Rs.2,16,00,000/- given to Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd, the appellant has filed confirmation from the said party and also submitted copy of ROl, bank statement etc. before the AO. Therefore, this loan no.6 of appeal is partly allowed.” (emphasis supplied externally) In view of the above verification, the claim of the assessee is of Rs. 2,16,00,000/- made in pertaining to Mrs. Niryat India Private Limited, the assessee submitted that it is a trade advance for which a copy of the MOU dated 24/07/2008 confirming the same is already placed on record. The remand report , a copy of which is placed on , also confirmed that as per the MOU filed, the amount represented as advance received from said party for sale/assigning development right of a plot. We are the opinion that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that amount in dispute was a trade advance to the assessee Assessing Officer was that how that amount has been adjusted subsequently. We are of the opinion that as far as provision section 68 are concerned, the assessee has discharge way of filing MOU between the assessee and said party. Once the assessee filed the confirmation and if he did not discharge his onus, the assessee c faulted. Accordingly, the addition in respect of M/s Narayan Niryat India Private Limited is deleted 53.3 Regarding the amount of Reality, the Ld. Counsel opportunity. In the interest of the substantial justice particularly in view of the fact that assessee has already demised and being represented by his widow, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding a fresh. It is needl to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 54. In ground No. 8 expenses of ₹30,557/ depreciation, interest on loan, telephone expenses et 55. We find that identical issue of ad similar expenses has been deleted by us in assessment year 2008 ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 dispute was a trade advance to the assessee and Assessing Officer was that how that amount has been adjusted We are of the opinion that as far as provision section 68 are concerned, the assessee has discharge way of filing MOU between the assessee and said party. Once the assessee filed the confirmation, onus sifted to the Assessing Officer and if he did not discharge his onus, the assessee c faulted. Accordingly, the addition in respect of M/s Narayan Niryat ndia Private Limited is deleted. Regarding the amount of ₹27,62,724/- from M/s Basant Ld. Counsel of the assessee has requested for one more e interest of the substantial justice particularly in view of the fact that assessee has already demised and being represented by his widow, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding a fresh. It is needl to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8, the assessee has challenged 30,557/- being 25% of expenses on motor car, depreciation, interest on loan, telephone expenses et We find that identical issue of ad-hoc addition in respect of the similar expenses has been deleted by us in assessment year 2008 Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 54 concern of the Assessing Officer was that how that amount has been adjusted We are of the opinion that as far as provisions of section 68 are concerned, the assessee has dischargedhis onus by way of filing MOU between the assessee and said party. Once the the Assessing Officer and if he did not discharge his onus, the assessee cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the addition in respect of M/s Narayan Niryat from M/s Basant of the assessee has requested for one more e interest of the substantial justice particularly in view of the fact that assessee has already demised and being represented by his widow, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding a fresh. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is disallowance of being 25% of expenses on motor car, depreciation, interest on loan, telephone expenses etc. hoc addition in respect of the similar expenses has been deleted by us in assessment year 2008- 09, according to following our finding in assessment year 2008 the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 56. The ground No. disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the to ₹24,13,176/-. 57. We find that identical issue 09, has been deleted by us, therefore following our finding in assessment year 2008 of the appeal of the assessee for the year under consideration is also deleted. 58. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 are allowed partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court/under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 02/02/2023 Dragon Legal/Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 llowing our finding in assessment year 2008 the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The ground No. 9 of the appeal of the assessee relate to disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the We find that identical issue raised in assessment year 2008 09, has been deleted by us, therefore following our finding in assessment year 2008-09 on the issue in dispute, the ground no. 9 of the appeal of the assessee for the year under consideration is In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 10 are allowed partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court/under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 02/02/2023. Sd/ CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 55 llowing our finding in assessment year 2008-09, of the appeal of the assessee relate to disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting in assessment year 2008- 09, has been deleted by us, therefore following our finding in 09 on the issue in dispute, the ground no. 9 of the appeal of the assessee for the year under consideration is In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 10 are allowed partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court/under Rule 34(4) of Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai Late Sunil D Gulati ITA Nos. 2091 & 2092/M/2022 56 BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai