M/S EAGLE INFRA INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI V. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, MUMBAI

ITA 2399/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around the tax assessments of M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd., which involved undisclosed income from 'on-money' receipts related to the sale of commercial properties. A search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, led to the seizure of documents indicating cash transactions not recorded in the regular books of accounts. The Assessing Officer made additions for these undisclosed incomes, which were partly contested and partly accepted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal's decision addressed the legality of the assessments under section 153A, the estimation of profit from 'on-money' receipts, and the applicability of benefits under PMGKY and IDS schemes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123444 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT Vs. Corporation, Sharda Real Estate Vs. CIT, CIT Vs. K.S.M. Guruswamy nadir & Sons, CIT Vs. Jawanmal Jemaji Gandhi
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMNIAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Tax effect; Tax effect; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 69; 37; 132; 44AD; 69C; 143(3); 153A; 48; 13; 22; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 to 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle-4, Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6 th floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, 16-Z Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Vs. M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd., Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Eagle Nest Building, Behind Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar 421003. PAN No. AACCE 7247 G Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 2397 to 2401/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2018-19 M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd., Barrack No. 758, Room No. 16, Eagle Nest Building, Behind Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar 421003. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6 th floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road, 16-Z Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400604. PAN No. AACCE 7247 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. M Subramnian Revenue by : Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 10/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 28/08/2023 ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed against a common order dated 29/06/2022 passed by the learned commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)- Pune [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment respectively. As identical issues are involved in these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed of consolidated order for convenience and avoid reputation of facts. 2. Briefly stated facts of assessment year, the assessee company business of civil contractor and development and construction of the commercial and housing projects. In the case of the assessee, a search action under section 13 short “the Act”) was carried out on 23/01/2018 wing of Income-tax Department alongwith premises of other group concern(s) and residence of the directors search action, certain loose papers were found and seized related to cash receipt of ₹9,25,50, office/shops space in a co Ahmadnagar, Maharashtra. Certain documents related to expenditure/investme search action, notices un various assessment years including AY 2014 assessment year 2018 143(2) the Act was issued. The assessee complied filed return of income in proceedings were commenced. The Assessing Officer on analysis of ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. ] for assessment year(AY) 2014-15 to AY 2018 . As identical issues are involved in these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed of consolidated order for convenience and avoid reputation of facts. Briefly stated facts of the case are that during re , the assessee company was engaged in the business of civil contractor and development and construction of the commercial and housing projects. In the case of the assessee, a search action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in ) was carried out on 23/01/2018 by the Investigation tax Department alongwith premises of other group concern(s) and residence of the directors. During the course of the certain loose papers were found and seized related to 9,25,50,100/- as on money on booking/sale of in a commercial project namely “ r, Maharashtra. Certain documents related to expenditure/investment were also found and seized. In view of the search action, notices under section 153A of the Act various assessment years including AY 2014-15 to 2017 assessment year 2018-19, being search year notice under section was issued. The assessee complied to the notices filed return of income in response. Thereafter, proceedings were commenced. The Assessing Officer on analysis of M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 2 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. 15 to AY 2018-19 . As identical issues are involved in these appeals, therefore same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid reputation of facts. the case are that during relevant was engaged in the business of civil contractor and development and construction of the commercial and housing projects. In the case of the assessee, a tax Act, 1961 (in by the Investigation tax Department alongwith premises of other group . During the course of the certain loose papers were found and seized related to on money on booking/sale of mmercial project namely “Eagle Park” at r, Maharashtra. Certain documents related to nt were also found and seized. In view of the Act were issued for 15 to 2017-18. The otice under section to the notices and response. Thereafter, assessment proceedings were commenced. The Assessing Officer on analysis of the seized document received as under: Sr. No. 1. 2013 2. 2014 3. 2015 4. 2016 Total 3. The seized paper ₹69,80,900/-, which was shown as receivable. 4. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee made t respect of taxability of the on contended that cash received as on purchase of material and payment purpose, therefore no addition should be m receipt of on-money and at most net profit at the rate of the 8% might be estimated for on seized papers indicating reference of expenses incurred it was argued that out of the on assessee had declared undisclosed income under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Y disclosure scheme, 2016, assessments under section 153A of the A rejected both these contention assessment orders passed by him for various assess covered by appeals before us ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. documents noted breakup of cash of F.Y. AY Amount in cash 2013-14 2014-15 1,02,76,600 2014-15 2015-16 3,67,73,600 2015-16 2016-17 1,57,62,900 2016-17 2017-18 2,97,37,000 Total 9,25,50,100 seized papers also contained details of which was shown as receivable. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee made t respect of taxability of the on-money received. at cash received as on-money had been utilised for material and payment of labour for construction therefore no addition should be made on account of money and at most net profit at the rate of the 8% for on-money. The assessee referred to various seized papers indicating reference of expenses incurred t was argued that out of the on-money received in cash, the assessee had declared undisclosed income under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) scheme, 2016 2016, , therefore no addition is called for in the ents under section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected both these contentions of the assessee and assessment orders passed by him for various assess covered by appeals before us, made addition for on-money received. M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. noted breakup of cash of ₹9,25,50,100/- Amount in cash 1,02,76,600 3,67,73,600 1,57,62,900 2,97,37,000 9,25,50,100 details of cash of Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee made two claims in money received. Firstly, it was money had been utilised for r for construction ade on account of money and at most net profit at the rate of the 8% referred to various seized papers indicating reference of expenses incurred. Secondly, money received in cash, the assessee had declared undisclosed income under the Pradhan ojana (PMGKY) scheme, 2016 and Income therefore no addition is called for in the ct. The Assessing Officer s of the assessee and in the assessment orders passed by him for various assessment years money received. 4.1 The Assessing Officer has also refer of Rs.4,30,18,727/- director of the assessee company his statement under section 132(4) of the A entries of subcontract electricals’ appearing from his residence. 5. In addition to additions based on the seized document. The various additions made by the Assessing Officer, in different assessment years, listed by the Ld. CIT(A) in para six of the impugned order under: A.Y. 2014-15 Cash receipts (Eagle Pride) 1,02,76,600 Unaccounted commission Unexplained investment (Netaji Plot) 1,12,818 Unrecorded cash receipts Unverified Labour Expenses 7,30,000 Unexplained Investment in plot at Sinner Total Additions 1,11,19,418 6. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and allowed part relief to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed rebate ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. The Assessing Officer has also referred to commission income for assessment year 2016-17 admitted by the director of the assessee company, ‘Sh Udhavdas Rupchandani nt under section 132(4) of the Act, on the b entries of subcontract of electric work given to ‘M/s Dhanlaxmi appearing at page No. 1 to 26 of bundle No. In addition to above, the Assessing officer also made other additions based on the seized document. The various additions made by the Assessing Officer, in different assessment years, listed by the Ld. CIT(A) in para six of the impugned order are 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018 3,67,73,600 1,57,62,900 2,97,37,000 69,80,900 4,30,18,727 32,588 52,245 31,84,805 30,550 7,25,000 21,56,800 1,39,00,000 5,14,31,188 5,88,64,422 3,29,21,805 91,37,700 further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and allowed part relief to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed rebate of 50 percentile for on-money as expenditure M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 4 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. red to commission income admitted by the Rupchandani’ in on the basis of M/s Dhanlaxmi page No. 1 to 26 of bundle No. 1(one) seized also made other additions based on the seized document. The various additions made by the Assessing Officer, in different assessment years, listed are extracted as 2018-19 Total 69,80,900 9,95,31,000 4,30,18,727 33,82,456 30,550 21,56,800 36,11,800 1,39,00,000 91,37,700 16,34,74,533 further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and allowed part relief to the assessee. The Ld. money as expenditure incurred and considered balance amount of 50 percentile as undisclosed income available in the hands of the assessee for relevant assessment years. Thereafter benefit of disclosure made in PMGKY scheme and IDS scheme and sustained the balanc of the assessee. Aggrie before the Tribunal by way of raising various grounds. 6.1 In the grounds for various years, two issues are common. Firstly, the issue of estimat money received in cash and secondly benefit of undisclosed income declared under PMGKY Scheme, 2016 and IDS, 2016. Therefor being common issues, firstly issues. Undisclosed income 7. The facts in brief qua on booking/sale of shops/offices assessee company, amount of ₹9,25,50,100/ recorded in the regular books of the accounts of the assessee company. Before us also money recorded in seized document and year same mentioned by the Asses The dispute is regarding its taxability. ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. considered balance amount of 50 percentile as undisclosed income available in the hands of the assessee for relevant assessment years. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A), given the benefit of disclosure made in PMGKY scheme and IDS scheme and sustained the balance amount of undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are ribunal by way of raising various grounds. In the grounds for various years, two issues are common. Firstly, the issue of estimating undisclosed income against the on money received in cash and secondly benefit of undisclosed income declared under PMGKY Scheme, 2016 and IDS, 2016. Therefor being common issues, firstly, we are adjudicating on tho Undisclosed income from on-money on booking/sale of The facts in brief qua the undisclosed income from on shops/offices is concerned , the director of the assessee company, ‘Sh Udhavdas Roopchandani’ 100/- received in cash as on-money, was not recorded in the regular books of the accounts of the assessee company. Before us also there is no dispute on the quantum of on money recorded in seized document and year -wise breakup of the same mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. The dispute is regarding its taxability. In the return of income file M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 5 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. considered balance amount of 50 percentile as undisclosed income available in the hands of the assessee for the Ld. CIT(A), given the benefit of disclosure made in PMGKY scheme and IDS scheme and e amount of undisclosed income in the hands ved, both the assessee and the Revenue are ribunal by way of raising various grounds. In the grounds for various years, two issues are common. disclosed income against the on- money received in cash and secondly benefit of undisclosed income declared under PMGKY Scheme, 2016 and IDS, 2016. Therefore, , we are adjudicating on those two money on booking/sale of shops the undisclosed income from on-money the director of the ’ admitted that money, was not recorded in the regular books of the accounts of the assessee no dispute on the quantum of on- wise breakup of the sing Officer in the assessment order. In the return of income filed under section 153A of the A assessee did not declare any additional income on account of unaccounted cash in t Officer, the assesse construction of the said project. It was contended that profit on such cash receipt should be estimated at the rate of 8% money, but the Assessing O Assessing Officer also rejected c money against declaration in PMGKY scheme and IDS. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee made reference of specific seized documents wherein expenditure incu referred to page No. 7( pertaining to “Eagle Pride showing cash collection of incurred of ₹1,57,62, same page also referr incurred by Mr Ghosh on account of financial year 2013-14 and 2014 4(four) of the bundle ₹2,53,73,488/- were incurred by related to “Eagle pride bundle No. A-5, show incurred for cash expenses related to the project “ assessee relied on No. of decisions in support of its claim that benefit of cash expenditure incurred should be allowed against the ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. under section 153A of the Act for AY 2014-15 to AY 2017 assessee did not declare any additional income on account of counted cash in the form of on-money. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee contended that cash was utiliz construction of the said project. It was contended that profit on such cash receipt should be estimated at the rate of 8% , but the Assessing Officer rejected said contention. The Assessing Officer also rejected contention for benefit of the on money against declaration in PMGKY scheme and IDS. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee made reference of specific seized documents wherein expenditure incurred in cash was reflected. The assessee 7(seven) of bundle No. 5(five), containing a table Eagle Pride Project” for financial year 2015 showing cash collection of ₹1,57,62,900/- and cash expenses 2,900/-. The assessee further submitted that same page also referred expenses amounting to Rs.14,55, incurred by Mr Ghosh on account of “Eagle Pride 14 and 2014-15. The page No. 6( ) of the bundle No. 5(five) show that expenses amounting to were incurred by ‘Sh Sunil Hazari Eagle pride”. In this manner, the aforesaid pages of , show total amount of ₹4,25,91,388/ penses related to the project “Eagle Pride”. The assessee relied on No. of decisions in support of its claim that benefit of cash expenditure incurred should be allowed against the M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 6 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. 15 to AY 2017-18, the assessee did not declare any additional income on account of . Before the Assessing e contended that cash was utilized for construction of the said project. It was contended that profit on such cash receipt should be estimated at the rate of 8% of on- fficer rejected said contention. The ontention for benefit of the on- money against declaration in PMGKY scheme and IDS. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee made reference of specific seized documents rred in cash was reflected. The assessee , containing a table for financial year 2015-16 and cash expenses . The assessee further submitted that ed expenses amounting to Rs.14,55,000/- Eagle Pride” during the 6(six), 5(five) and that expenses amounting to Sunil Hazari’ i.e supervisor the aforesaid pages of 91,388/- as have been Eagle Pride”. The assessee relied on No. of decisions in support of its claim that benefit of cash expenditure incurred should be allowed against the on-money received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) after the above decisions, cash expenditure, but rejected the contention of the assessee for restricting the net profit on such on Ld. CIT(A) allowed benefit to the extent of 50% of the on mon observing as under: “17. The case laws relied upon by the appellant as well as case laws as discussed above suggest that various High Courts and the jurisdictional Tribunal have held that only the profit element embedded in the 'on money and not the documents can be assessed as undisclosed income. It has also been held that in a search assessment, where computation of unaccounted income is based on entries in seized documents, all the entries should be taken into account in its entirety. The A cannot at his convenience accept the entries related to receipts and ignore the entries which indicate expenses. Accordingly, both the receipts as well as expenses, as mentioned in the seized documents must be taken into taxable income on undisclosed receipts. 18. In the present case, a perusal of page no. 7 of bundle no. 5 suggests that that this page contains a table. The first column of this table mentions the name "Eagle Pride" and agains mentioned. This amount exactly matches with the amount of on cash (Rs. 1,57,62,900/ as taxed by the assessing officer. On the right various payment Mr. Sameer Mr. Sahil Mr. Mukund Mr. Mukund (Misc.) Direct Exp. Purchase Total The above details suggest that certain cash expenses on account of labour, centring, transport, purchase, etc., were made by the appellant company and the narrations made on the seized paper suggests that both receipt and expenses pertain to the project namely 'Eagle Pride'. 19. Similarly, the seized page no. 4 to 6 contain var amounting to Rs. 2,53,73,488/ payment, amount as well as nature of the payment which are mainly for Steel bar, Bricks, Timber, Steel Angels, Pipes, hardware, labour, structure ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. money received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) after , in principle admitted for allowing benefit of cash expenditure, but rejected the contention of the assessee for cting the net profit on such on-money at the rate of 8%. T Ld. CIT(A) allowed benefit to the extent of 50% of the on mon The case laws relied upon by the appellant as well as case laws as discussed above suggest that various High Courts and the jurisdictional Tribunal have held that only the profit element embedded in the 'on money and not the entire receipts, as recorded in the seized documents can be assessed as undisclosed income. It has also been held that in a search assessment, where computation of unaccounted income is based on entries in seized documents, all the entries should be taken into account in its entirety. The A cannot at his convenience accept the entries related to receipts and ignore the entries which indicate expenses. Accordingly, both the receipts as well as expenses, as mentioned in the seized documents must be taken into account, for determination of taxable income on undisclosed receipts. 18. In the present case, a perusal of page no. 7 of bundle no. 5 suggests that that this page contains a table. The first column of this table mentions the name "Eagle Pride" and against this figure of 1576.29 is mentioned. This amount exactly matches with the amount of on cash (Rs. 1,57,62,900/-) received by the appellant during the FY 2015 as taxed by the assessing officer. On the right-hand side of this table, various payments are tabulated as under: Mr. Sameer- Labour 275 Mr. Sahil- Centring 155 Mr. Mukund- Transport 128 Mr. Mukund (Misc.) 0.9 Direct Exp. - Pride 265.39 Purchase 752 1576.29 The above details suggest that certain cash expenses on account of , centring, transport, purchase, etc., were made by the appellant company and the narrations made on the seized paper suggests that both receipt and expenses pertain to the project namely 'Eagle Pride'. 19. Similarly, the seized page no. 4 to 6 contain various payments amounting to Rs. 2,53,73,488/-. These entries contain date of the payment, amount as well as nature of the payment which are mainly for Steel bar, Bricks, Timber, Steel Angels, Pipes, hardware, labour, structure M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 7 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. money received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) after analyzing in principle admitted for allowing benefit of cash expenditure, but rejected the contention of the assessee for money at the rate of 8%. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed benefit to the extent of 50% of the on money The case laws relied upon by the appellant as well as case laws as discussed above suggest that various High Courts and the jurisdictional Tribunal have held that only the profit element embedded in entire receipts, as recorded in the seized documents can be assessed as undisclosed income. It has also been held that in a search assessment, where computation of unaccounted income is based on entries in seized documents, all the entries should be taken into account in its entirety. The A cannot at his convenience accept the entries related to receipts and ignore the entries which indicate expenses. Accordingly, both the receipts as well as expenses, as mentioned in the account, for determination of 18. In the present case, a perusal of page no. 7 of bundle no. 5 suggests that that this page contains a table. The first column of this table t this figure of 1576.29 is mentioned. This amount exactly matches with the amount of on-money ) received by the appellant during the FY 2015-16 hand side of this table, The above details suggest that certain cash expenses on account of , centring, transport, purchase, etc., were made by the appellant company and the narrations made on the seized paper suggests that both receipt and expenses pertain to the project namely 'Eagle Pride'. ious payments . These entries contain date of the payment, amount as well as nature of the payment which are mainly for Steel bar, Bricks, Timber, Steel Angels, Pipes, hardware, labour, structure steel, purchases, etc. At one explicity.it... on 08/03/2014. Rs. 0.28,0001 Eagle Price' At some places, name of Eagle Pride is mentioned as EP. For example, on 31/12/2013 there is an entry 5,75,000 EP Exps (upto Dec 2013)'. Similarly. on 28/02/2014 there is an entry 9,82,000 EP Purchase-Feb'. These project namely Eagle Pride as 20. The claim of the appellant is that as per the seized documen amount of Rs. 4,25,91,388/ said project on which on the appellant is not able to evidences that expenditure to this project namely 'Eagle Pride, however, as discussed above, the narration of entries on seized documents clearly suggests that substantial amount of cash expenses was incurred by the appellant for the project. In these circumstances, following the case laws discussed earlier, I am of the opinion thatwhile computing the unaccounted income, all the entries in the seized documents should be taken into account andthe A cannot at his convenience accept the entries, related to r entries which indicate expenses. Accordingly, both the receipts as well as expenses, as mentioned in the seized documents must be taken into account, for determination of taxable income on undisclosed receipts. 21. From the decisions various Courts/Tribunalhave held that only profit element out of the 'on money should be taxed, the estimation of that profit element would depend on the facts of the particular case. In the case of DCIT Vs. Corporation (2012)/74 DTR (Guj) 89, where the assessee was engaged in the business of construction of flats and loose papers evidencing collection of unaccounted cash were found during course of search, the Gujarat High Court upheld determination of total undisclosed receipts of Rs.62 lacs (i.e.42%). In the decision of Sharda Real Estate mentioned earlier, the MP High Court upheld the determination of income @25% of unaceounted receipts. 22. In the present case, the appell of the 'on-money' should be computed by applying the rate of 8%. However, no reasonable basis for adopting this figure of 8% has been given by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant has argued that it is in the business of Civil accordingly it is reasonable to compute the net profit by applying the rate of 8% on such cash receipts. I have examined this contention of the appellant; however, the nature of the project 'Eagle Pride' is not similar to other Civil Const Accordingly, the rate of 8% As suggested by the appellant cannot be accepted. 23. In the present case, the total cash receipts as per the summary sheet seized during the search is Rs. 9,25,50,100/ that the seized documents contain a total cash expenditure on the project namely Eagle Pride to the extent of Rs. 4,25,91,388/ ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. steel, purchases, etc. At one place the name of Eagle. Pride is mentioned explicity.it... on 08/03/2014. Rs. 0.28,0001- were spent as * labour Eagle Price' At some places, name of Eagle Pride is mentioned as EP. For example, on 31/12/2013 there is an entry 5,75,000 EP Exps (upto Dec Similarly. on 28/02/2014 there is an entry 9,82,000 EP Feb'. These narrations suggest that these expenses relate to the project namely Eagle Pride as claimed by the appellant. 20. The claim of the appellant is that as per the seized documen amount of Rs. 4,25,91,388/- was incurred in cash for construction of said project on which on-money was received by the appellant. Although, appellant is not able to substantiate with corroborative documentary evidences that expenditure to this extent was actually incurred for the project namely 'Eagle Pride, however, as discussed above, the narration of entries on seized documents clearly suggests that substantial amount of cash expenses was incurred by the appellant for the project. In these rcumstances, following the case laws discussed earlier, I am of the opinion thatwhile computing the unaccounted income, all the entries in the seized documents should be taken into account andthe A cannot at his convenience accept the entries, related to receipts and ignore the entries which indicate expenses. Accordingly, both the receipts as well as expenses, as mentioned in the seized documents must be taken into account, for determination of taxable income on undisclosed receipts. 21. From the decisions discussed above, it can also be seen that while various Courts/Tribunalhave held that only profit element out of the 'on money should be taxed, the estimation of that profit element would depend on the facts of the particular case. In the case of DCIT Vs. Corporation (2012)/74 DTR (Guj) 89, where the assessee was engaged in the business of construction of flats and loose papers evidencing collection of unaccounted cash were found during course of search, the Gujarat High Court upheld determination of income at Rs.26 lacs out of total undisclosed receipts of Rs.62 lacs (i.e.42%). In the decision of Sharda Real Estate mentioned earlier, the MP High Court upheld the determination of income @25% of unaceounted receipts. . In the present case, the appellant contends that the profit element out money' should be computed by applying the rate of 8%. However, no reasonable basis for adopting this figure of 8% has been given by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant has argued that it is in the business of Civil Construction and accordingly it is reasonable to compute the net profit by applying the rate of 8% on such cash receipts. I have examined this contention of the appellant; however, the nature of the project 'Eagle Pride' is not similar to other Civil Construction project undertaken by the appellant assessee. Accordingly, the rate of 8% As suggested by the appellant cannot be 23. In the present case, the total cash receipts as per the summary sheet seized during the search is Rs. 9,25,50,100/-. The appellant has claimed that the seized documents contain a total cash expenditure on the project namely Eagle Pride to the extent of Rs. 4,25,91,388/-. In this manner, the M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 8 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. Pride is mentioned were spent as * labour- Eagle Price' At some places, name of Eagle Pride is mentioned as EP. For example, on 31/12/2013 there is an entry 5,75,000 EP Exps (upto Dec- Similarly. on 28/02/2014 there is an entry 9,82,000 EP narrations suggest that these expenses relate to the 20. The claim of the appellant is that as per the seized documents, an was incurred in cash for construction of money was received by the appellant. Although, substantiate with corroborative documentary extent was actually incurred for the project namely 'Eagle Pride, however, as discussed above, the narration of entries on seized documents clearly suggests that substantial amount of cash expenses was incurred by the appellant for the project. In these rcumstances, following the case laws discussed earlier, I am of the opinion thatwhile computing the unaccounted income, all the entries in the seized documents should be taken into account andthe A cannot at eceipts and ignore the entries which indicate expenses. Accordingly, both the receipts as well as expenses, as mentioned in the seized documents must be taken into account, for determination of taxable income on undisclosed receipts. discussed above, it can also be seen that while various Courts/Tribunalhave held that only profit element out of the 'on- money should be taxed, the estimation of that profit element would depend on the facts of the particular case. In the case of DCIT Vs. Panna Corporation (2012)/74 DTR (Guj) 89, where the assessee was engaged in the business of construction of flats and loose papers evidencing collection of unaccounted cash were found during course of search, the income at Rs.26 lacs out of total undisclosed receipts of Rs.62 lacs (i.e.42%). In the decision of Sharda Real Estate mentioned earlier, the MP High Court upheld the ant contends that the profit element out money' should be computed by applying the rate of 8%. However, no reasonable basis for adopting this figure of 8% has been given by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the AR of the Construction and accordingly it is reasonable to compute the net profit by applying the rate of 8% on such cash receipts. I have examined this contention of the appellant; however, the nature of the project 'Eagle Pride' is not similar to ruction project undertaken by the appellant assessee. Accordingly, the rate of 8% As suggested by the appellant cannot be 23. In the present case, the total cash receipts as per the summary sheet appellant has claimed that the seized documents contain a total cash expenditure on the project . In this manner, the profit on cash transactions comes to Rs. 4,99,58,712/ 4,25,91,388). Thus, the net profit ratio on cash transactions, comes to 53.98%. This profit ratio can be used as an indicator for estimating the income embedded in the 'on Considering the facts of the case in entirety and the propositio down by various High Courts as discussed above, I am of the view that it will be fair to both assessee and revenue, if the profit embedded in the 'on-money is estimated @50%. directed to take 50% of the 'On year, rather than treating the entire amountas unaccounted income. 7.1 Before us the learned counsel of the assessee submission made before the Ld. CIT(A) and also submitted that firstly, the amount of money received from sale of shops/offices. The Assessing Officer assessed the entire gross amount as income despite the explanation that gross receipt can never be taxable income and only the net amount after deducti the contention, the learned counsel relied on following decisions i) Lalchand Gopaldas Vs CIT 48 ITR 324 (All) ii) DCIT Vs Panna Corporation TA No. 323 & 325 of 2000 iii) CIT vs Gurubachan Singh Juneja 7.2 Secondly, the learned the cases of civil contractors/ been estimated: i. CIT Vs. Sharada Real Estate (P) Ltd. 99 D'TR 100 (MP) Estimated addition is 25% of ii. Bhalchandra Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No. 2977 & 2978/M /2019 iii. ACIT Vs. Om Construction IT No. 6234/M/2012 Estimated addition is 12% iv. ACIT Vs. Shahkar Developers IT No. 6235/M /2012 Estimated ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. profit on cash transactions comes to Rs. 4,99,58,712/- (9,25,50, 100 Thus, the net profit ratio on cash transactions, comes to 53.98%. This profit ratio can be used as an indicator for estimating the income embedded in the 'on-money received by the appellant. Considering the facts of the case in entirety and the propositio down by various High Courts as discussed above, I am of the view that it will be fair to both assessee and revenue, if the profit embedded in the money is estimated @50%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to take 50% of the 'On-money as the appellant's income for each year, rather than treating the entire amountas unaccounted income. us the learned counsel of the assessee submission made before the Ld. CIT(A) and also submitted that the amount of ₹9,25,50,100/- was the gross amount of on money received from sale of shops/offices. The Assessing Officer assessed the entire gross amount as income despite the explanation that gross receipt can never be taxable income and only the net amount after deducting expenditure could be taxed. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied on following decisions i) Lalchand Gopaldas Vs CIT 48 ITR 324 (All) ii) DCIT Vs Panna Corporation TA No. 323 & 325 of 2000 iii) CIT vs Gurubachan Singh Juneja 302 ITR 63 (Guj) , the learned Counsel referred to following decisions of civil contractors/developers, wherein net profit rate has CIT Vs. Sharada Real Estate (P) Ltd. 99 D'TR 100 (MP) Estimated addition is 25% of the receipts Bhalchandra Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No. 2977 & 2978/M /2019 -Estimated addition is 12% of the reccipts. ACIT Vs. Om Construction IT No. 6234/M/2012 Estimated addition is 12% ACIT Vs. Shahkar Developers IT No. 6235/M /2012 Estimated addition is 17%. M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 9 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. (9,25,50, 100 - Thus, the net profit ratio on cash transactions, comes to 53.98%. This profit ratio can be used as an indicator for estimating the money received by the appellant. Considering the facts of the case in entirety and the proposition laid down by various High Courts as discussed above, I am of the view that it will be fair to both assessee and revenue, if the profit embedded in the Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is y as the appellant's income for each year, rather than treating the entire amountas unaccounted income.” us the learned counsel of the assessee relied on the submission made before the Ld. CIT(A) and also submitted that was the gross amount of on- money received from sale of shops/offices. The Assessing Officer assessed the entire gross amount as income despite the explanation that gross receipt can never be taxable income and only the net ng expenditure could be taxed. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied on following decisions: ii) DCIT Vs Panna Corporation TA No. 323 & 325 of 2000 302 ITR 63 (Guj) referred to following decisions in wherein net profit rate has CIT Vs. Sharada Real Estate (P) Ltd. 99 D'TR 100 (MP) the receipts Bhalchandra Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No. 2977 & Estimated addition is 12% of the reccipts. ACIT Vs. Om Construction IT No. 6234/M/2012 Estimated ACIT Vs. Shahkar Developers IT No. 6235/M /2012 - v. ACIT Vs. Sri Sri Estates, Hyderabad. ITA No.2242 to 2245/Hyd/ 17. vi. Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle Mumbai. ITA No. 1732 to 1745/ Mum/2019. Estimated addition 15% 7.3 Relying on the above decisions, the learned counsel submitted that though the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted that only net receipt could be taxed but estimated the expenditure at the rate of the 50% without assigning any proper reasons. The learned counsel submitted that under the provisions of the Act the presumptive profit has been fixed at 8% and 10% respectively. It was submitted that assessee’s net profit had never been more than 8% the decisions relied money received should be restricted to receipts. 7.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. T contended that undisclosed income from booking/sale of shops shoul against total amount of on the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) h allowed 50% of the on cash by the assessee for the project and sustained balance 50% of the on-money received as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. The assessee is aggrieved with the ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. ACIT Vs. Sri Sri Estates, Hyderabad. ITA No.2242 to 2245/Hyd/ 17. - Estimated addition 12.5% Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle Mumbai. ITA No. 1732 to 1745/ Mum/2019. Estimated addition 15% elying on the above decisions, the learned counsel submitted that though the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted that only net receipt could be taxed but estimated the expenditure at the rate of the 50% without assigning any proper reasons. The learned counsel ed that under the provisions of section 44AD and 44BBB of ct the presumptive profit has been fixed at 8% and 10% respectively. It was submitted that assessee’s net profit had never been more than 8% in past assessment years. Therefore in view of ecisions relied upon, the estimated taxable portion of one should be restricted to not more than 25% We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. T contended that undisclosed income from on-money received on booking/sale of shops should be restricted to 25 % of on against total amount of on-money held as undisclosed income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) h allowed 50% of the on-money received as expenditure incurred in cash by the assessee for the project and sustained balance 50% of money received as undisclosed income in the hands of the The assessee is aggrieved with the addition M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 10 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. ACIT Vs. Sri Sri Estates, Hyderabad. ITA No.2242 to Estimated addition 12.5% Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai. ITA No. 1732 to 1745/ Mum/2019. Estimated elying on the above decisions, the learned counsel submitted that though the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted that only net receipt could be taxed but estimated the expenditure at the rate of the 50% without assigning any proper reasons. The learned counsel section 44AD and 44BBB of ct the presumptive profit has been fixed at 8% and 10% respectively. It was submitted that assessee’s net profit had never s. Therefore in view of the estimated taxable portion of one not more than 25% of such We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee money received on % of on-money as undisclosed income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has however money received as expenditure incurred in cash by the assessee for the project and sustained balance 50% of money received as undisclosed income in the hands of the on sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), whereas the R allowed by Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) agreed for allowing set off for the cash expenditure in view of the various decisions cited in the order. The same decisions before us. In all those decisions cash has been considered against the We fully endorse the ratio of the decisions cited. that whenever documentary evidence of cash along with receipt of on course of the search or survey action, for said deduction of expens determination of profit eleme Therefore, it is important to examine the documentary evidence which could support the claim of the assessee for deduction of expenditure incurred in cash against on booking/sale of shops. The Ld. CIT(A) i impugned order, which we have reproduced above, has referred to evidences of expenditure incurred in cash. We find that as regard to page No. 7(seven) of bundle No. a mention of some nam claimed to be his emplo without any unit of currency that same was expenditure incurred in cash. purchased or refere mentioned. It also cannot be inferred whether the said amount was ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. , whereas the Revenue is aggrieved with the relief allowed by Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) agreed for allowing set off for the cash expenditure in view of the various s cited in the order. The same decisions have been cited se decisions deduction for expenses incurred in cash has been considered against the cash received as on We fully endorse the ratio of the decisions cited. It is undisputed that whenever documentary evidence of incurring expenditure i cash along with receipt of on-money in cash is found during the course of the search or survey action, then an assessee is eligible for said deduction of expenses out of the receipt of the on determination of profit element embedded in those receipt it is important to examine the documentary evidence which could support the claim of the assessee for deduction of ure incurred in cash against on-money received on booking/sale of shops. The Ld. CIT(A) in paragraphs , which we have reproduced above, has referred to of expenditure incurred in cash. We find that as regard to of bundle No. 5(five) , referred in para 18, there is mention of some names on left hand side, which the assessee has to be his employees and some amount on of currency. From this table it cannot be inferred that same was expenditure incurred in cash. The name of item purchased or reference of any bill or ‘challan’ etc is also not It also cannot be inferred whether the said amount was M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 11 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. evenue is aggrieved with the relief allowed by Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) agreed for allowing set off for the cash expenditure in view of the various have been cited deduction for expenses incurred in cash received as on-money. It is undisputed incurring expenditure in found during the assessee is eligible es out of the receipt of the on-money for nt embedded in those receipts. it is important to examine the documentary evidences, which could support the claim of the assessee for deduction of money received on graphs 18 to 20 of the , which we have reproduced above, has referred to of expenditure incurred in cash. We find that as regard to , referred in para 18, there is side, which the assessee has right hand side . From this table it cannot be inferred The name of item nce of any bill or ‘challan’ etc is also not It also cannot be inferred whether the said amount was already entered or recorded in the regular books of accounts. Unless such verification, considering the said amount of as ₹1,57,62,900/- and as basis by the ld CIT(A) for allowing 50% of the on as expenditure, is not justified. Further the Ld. CIT(A) in para 19 has referred to certain expenses amounting to perusal of the para 19 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that there is a reference of expenditure in respect of the building material including steel bar, bricks, timber etc related to the project “Eagle Pride” but there is no mention of any bill no /date /amount , thus, it cannot be verified whether the expenditure mentioned in the seized documents are already recorded in the regular books of accounts. But for verification assessee to produce entries recorded in books of accounts for purchase of building material on relevant dates and to substantiate that the purchase of the relevant material was not recorded in regular books of accounts. No such exercise has been carried out by assessee either before the AO or the 50% of the expenses has been allowed verification, therefore same is not justified. It is not always necessary that cash expenditure money received in cash. It is not like Newton’s law of will remain uniform across the globe. expenditure depends on case to case and i in cash against the on ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. already entered or recorded in the regular books of accounts. Unless such verification, considering the said amount of and incurred in cash and then making the same asis by the ld CIT(A) for allowing 50% of the on- is not justified. Further the Ld. CIT(A) in para 19 has referred to certain expenses amounting to ₹2,53,73, of the para 19 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that there is a reference of expenditure in respect of the building material including steel bar, bricks, timber etc related to the project “Eagle there is no mention of any bill no /date /amount , thus, it cannot be verified whether the expenditure mentioned in the seized documents are already recorded in the regular books of for verification of expenses, the onus is on the assessee to produce entries recorded in books of accounts for ase of building material on relevant dates and to substantiate the purchase of the relevant material was not recorded in regular books of accounts. No such exercise has been carried out by assessee either before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A) and deduction 50% of the expenses has been allowed by the ld CIT(A) therefore same is not justified. It is not always necessary that cash expenditure shall be incurred out of the on money received in cash. It is not like Newton’s law of will remain uniform across the globe. The quantum of cash expenditure depends on case to case and incurring of exp in cash against the on-money received has to be substantiated by M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 12 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. already entered or recorded in the regular books of accounts. Unless such verification, considering the said amount of ₹1576.29 making the same -money received is not justified. Further the Ld. CIT(A) in para 19 2,53,73,488/-. On of the para 19 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that there is a reference of expenditure in respect of the building material including steel bar, bricks, timber etc related to the project “Eagle there is no mention of any bill no /date /amount , thus, it cannot be verified whether the expenditure mentioned in the seized documents are already recorded in the regular books of , the onus is on the assessee to produce entries recorded in books of accounts for ase of building material on relevant dates and to substantiate the purchase of the relevant material was not recorded in regular books of accounts. No such exercise has been carried out by Ld. CIT(A) and deduction of the by the ld CIT(A) without such therefore same is not justified. It is not always shall be incurred out of the on- money received in cash. It is not like Newton’s law of gravity which The quantum of cash ncurring of expenditure money received has to be substantiated by way of the documentary evidence date, amount etc. The expenses recorded in such documentary evidence only. search only a lead then onus is on the assessee supplier/bill No./date/amount etc so that claim of the assessee of cash expenses incurred out of books can be subjected to verification. As no such exercise has been carried out by the assessee, in the circumstances, we set CIT(A) for allowing 50% of the on expenditure in cash. Benefit of set off of disclosure made in PMGKY, Scheme 2016 and IDS, 2016 8. The second common ground raised in the appeals is regarding benefit of set off of disclosure made in PMGKY, Scheme 2016 and IDS, 2016. 8.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee declared total undisclosed income of IDS-2016 on 14/09/2016 having year amounting to ₹ 25 lakh, AY:2013 2015-16 amounting to accepted by the Income payment of due taxes amounting to ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. way of the documentary evidence having clear mention The deduction can be allowed in respect of the expenses recorded in such documentary evidence only. only a lead paper indicating expenses incurred then onus is on the assessee to provide complete details of No./date/amount etc so that claim of the assessee of cash expenses incurred out of books can be subjected to verification. As no such exercise has been carried out by the n the circumstances, we set aside the finding of the Ld. T(A) for allowing 50% of the on-money receipt as incurred for Benefit of set off of disclosure made in PMGKY, Scheme 2016 The second common ground raised in the appeals is regarding it of set off of disclosure made in PMGKY, Scheme 2016 and The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee declared total undisclosed income of ₹ 1 crore in cash 2016 on 14/09/2016 having year -wise details of AY 2012 25 lakh, AY:2013-14 amounting to ₹25 lakh and AY: 16 amounting to ₹50 lakhs. The said declar accepted by the Income-tax department on 23/10/2017 on payment of due taxes amounting to ₹ 45 lakh. M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 13 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. having clear mention of bill no, deduction can be allowed in respect of the expenses recorded in such documentary evidence only. If during paper indicating expenses incurred is found, to provide complete details of No./date/amount etc so that claim of the assessee of cash expenses incurred out of books can be subjected to verification. As no such exercise has been carried out by the aside the finding of the Ld. money receipt as incurred for Benefit of set off of disclosure made in PMGKY, Scheme 2016 The second common ground raised in the appeals is regarding it of set off of disclosure made in PMGKY, Scheme 2016 and The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee in cash under the wise details of AY 2012-13 25 lakh and AY: . The said declaration has been tax department on 23/10/2017 on 8.2 The assessee further 30/03/2017 wherein undisclosed income of declared, which consisted of of ₹6,98,93,500/-held deposits in various bank accounts. These deposits were made notes of ₹ 500 and 08/11/2016. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that in financial year 2016 17 corresponding to assessment year 2017 amount of ₹2,97,37, office /shops and therefore ₹2,97,37,000/- out of sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2017 Secondly, after reducing amount of ₹7,00,00, 4,02,63,000/-, has been set off against the amount of ₹4,30,18,727/- received as commission in cash in the financial year 2015-16 corresponding to assessment year 2016 manner, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed set off the entire amount of undisclosed income declared under PMGKY. Regarding the undisclosed income of Ld. CIT(A) allowed set of 2015-16. The relevant fi under: “34. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. It is a fact that a declaration in Form undisclosed income of Rs. 7,00,00,000 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. further made declaration under PMGKY on 30/03/2017 wherein undisclosed income of ₹ declared, which consisted of ₹1,06,500/-held in cash and amount held deposits in various bank accounts. These in banks post the demonetization 500 and Rs. 1000/- by the Reserve Bank of India 08/11/2016. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that in financial year 2016 17 corresponding to assessment year 2017-18 , the assessee earned 2,97,37,000/-as cash towards on-money on sale of office /shops and therefore , firstly, considered set off of out of ₹ 7 crores against the undisclosed income sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2017 reducing the amount of ₹2,97,37, 7,00,00,000/-, the balance amount of has been set off against the amount of received as commission in cash in the financial year 16 corresponding to assessment year 2016 nner, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed set off the entire amount of undisclosed income declared under PMGKY. Regarding the undisclosed income of ₹ 50 lakh declared under IDS Ld. CIT(A) allowed set off of the same against the assessme The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as 34. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. It is a fact that a declaration in Form-1 declaring an undisclosed income of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- was made by the appellant M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 14 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. declaration under PMGKY on 7 crores was held in cash and amount held deposits in various bank accounts. These zation of currency eserve Bank of India on 08/11/2016. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that in financial year 2016- 18 , the assessee earned money on sale of considered set off of against the undisclosed income sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2017-18. 2,97,37,000/-from the , the balance amount of Rs. has been set off against the amount of received as commission in cash in the financial year 16 corresponding to assessment year 2016-17. In this nner, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed set off the entire amount of undisclosed income declared under PMGKY. Regarding the under IDS in 2015-16, the the same against the assessment year nding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as 34. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by 1 declaring an was made by the appellant under PMGKY, 2016 on 30/03/2017. It is also not under dispute that as per the scheme, the appellant was not required to disclose the source of such undisclosed income declared under PMGKY, 2016. A perusal of Form-1 specified un declarant is required to declare the assessment year to which such income pertains or source from where such undisclosed income was earned. It is also not in dispute that in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 25/01/2018, the director of the appellant company informed the authorized officer about the declaration made by the company under PMGKY. This was reiterated in another statement u/s 132(4) recorded on 05/03/2018. The same stand was maintained by the appellant before the DDIT (Inv.) during the post search investigation as well as during the assessment proceedings. Since, the scheme itself did not require to disclose any nexus between the source and the income declared, in that situation, the observation the appellant has not been able to show any nexus between the undisclosed income detected during the search operation and the declaration under PMGKY, are not correct. The appellant has explained that it has earned undisclos deposited in the bank account during F.Y. 2016 income of Rs. 7,00,00,000/ situation, not granting the benefit of this disclosure of Rs. 7,00,00,000/ against the undisclosed cash income detected during the search operation, shall amount to double taxation which is not permissible under law. Considering the totality of facts of the case, it is held that the appellant is eligible for benefit of setting off of u detected during the search against the disclosure made under PMGKY Scheme. 35. The appellant has however worked out total undisclosed income for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016 this order) on various additions made by the Assessing Officer, as per its own computation. In this connection, it may be stated that I do not agree with the manner of computation made by the appellant for the reasons discussed in detail in this ord made by the Assessing Officer are discussed. which appellant has claimed the benefit of disclosure made under PMGKY Scheme against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, is rejected and the manner in which the set discussed in subsequent paragraphs 36. The disclosure in PMGKY Scheme was made by the appellant in FY 2016-17. As per PMGKY Scheme, a declarant was required to disclose the undisclosed income rep available with the appellant. regarding the setting off of cash receipts detected during the search operation with the disclosure made in PMGKY Scheme. 93:85 work backwards starting from FY 2016 order, during F.Y. 2016 company has earned an amount of Rs. 2,97,37,000/ on-money on sale of offices/shops in the project name also seen from the seized documents that no cash expenditure on this ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. under PMGKY, 2016 on 30/03/2017. It is also not under dispute that as per the scheme, the appellant was not required to disclose the source of such undisclosed income declared under PMGKY, 2016. A perusal of 1 specified under PMGKY, 2016 suggests that nowhere the declarant is required to declare the assessment year to which such income pertains or source from where such undisclosed income was earned. It is also not in dispute that in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) 01/2018, the director of the appellant company informed the authorized officer about the declaration made by the company under PMGKY. This was reiterated in another statement u/s 132(4) recorded on 05/03/2018. The same stand was maintained by the appellant before the DDIT (Inv.) during the post search investigation as well as during the assessment proceedings. Since, the scheme itself did not require to disclose any nexus between the source and the income declared, in that situation, the observations of the Assessing Officer that the appellant has not been able to show any nexus between the undisclosed income detected during the search operation and the declaration under PMGKY, are not correct. The appellant has explained that it has earned undisclosed income in form of cash which was deposited in the bank account during F.Y. 2016-17 and such undisclosed income of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- was disclosed in PMGKY Scheme. In such situation, not granting the benefit of this disclosure of Rs. 7,00,00,000/ t the undisclosed cash income detected during the search operation, shall amount to double taxation which is not permissible under Considering the totality of facts of the case, it is held that the appellant is eligible for benefit of setting off of undisclosed cash income detected during the search against the disclosure made under PMGKY 35. The appellant has however worked out total undisclosed income for 15 to 2016-17 at Rs. 5,04,23,285/- (reproduced at para this order) on various additions made by the Assessing Officer, as per its own computation. In this connection, it may be stated that I do not agree with the manner of computation made by the appellant for the reasons discussed in detail in this order at places where the specific additions made by the Assessing Officer are discussed. Accordingly, the manner in which appellant has claimed the benefit of disclosure made under PMGKY Scheme against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, is and the manner in which the set-off can be allowed is being discussed in subsequent paragraphs 36. The disclosure in PMGKY Scheme was made by the appellant in FY As per PMGKY Scheme, a declarant was required to disclose the undisclosed income represented in the form of deposits or cash available with the appellant. Therefore, while working out the benefit regarding the setting off of cash receipts detected during the search operation with the disclosure made in PMGKY Scheme. 93:85 backwards starting from FY 2016-17. As discussed earlier in this during F.Y. 2016-17 corresponding to A.Y. 2017-18, the appellant company has earned an amount of Rs. 2,97,37,000/- as cash towards money on sale of offices/shops in the project namely Eagle Pride. It is also seen from the seized documents that no cash expenditure on this M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 15 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. under PMGKY, 2016 on 30/03/2017. It is also not under dispute that as per the scheme, the appellant was not required to disclose the source of such undisclosed income declared under PMGKY, 2016. A perusal of der PMGKY, 2016 suggests that nowhere the declarant is required to declare the assessment year to which such income pertains or source from where such undisclosed income was earned. It is also not in dispute that in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) 01/2018, the director of the appellant company informed the authorized officer about the declaration made by the company under PMGKY. This was reiterated in another statement u/s 132(4) recorded on 05/03/2018. The same stand was maintained by the appellant company before the DDIT (Inv.) during the post search investigation as well as during the assessment proceedings. Since, the scheme itself did not require to disclose any nexus between the source and the income s of the Assessing Officer that the appellant has not been able to show any nexus between the undisclosed income detected during the search operation and the declaration under PMGKY, are not correct. The appellant has explained ed income in form of cash which was 17 and such undisclosed was disclosed in PMGKY Scheme. In such situation, not granting the benefit of this disclosure of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- t the undisclosed cash income detected during the search operation, shall amount to double taxation which is not permissible under Considering the totality of facts of the case, it is held that the ndisclosed cash income detected during the search against the disclosure made under PMGKY 35. The appellant has however worked out total undisclosed income for (reproduced at para 25 of this order) on various additions made by the Assessing Officer, as per its own computation. In this connection, it may be stated that I do not agree with the manner of computation made by the appellant for the reasons er at places where the specific additions Accordingly, the manner in which appellant has claimed the benefit of disclosure made under PMGKY Scheme against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, is off can be allowed is being 36. The disclosure in PMGKY Scheme was made by the appellant in FY As per PMGKY Scheme, a declarant was required to disclose resented in the form of deposits or cash Therefore, while working out the benefit regarding the setting off of cash receipts detected during the search operation with the disclosure made in PMGKY Scheme. 93:85 one has to 17. As discussed earlier in this 18, the appellant as cash towards ly Eagle Pride. It is also seen from the seized documents that no cash expenditure on this project was incurred by the company income embedded in the 'on money but that is afte seized documents which were incurred during the period prior to F.Y. 2016-17. In such situation, whole of this cash receipt amounting to Rs. 2,97,37,000/-was available to the appellant for deposit in the PMGK Scheme because as per PMGKY Scheme, a declarant was required to disclose the undisclosed income represented in the form of deposits or cash available with the appellant. Therefore, while granting the setting off benefit against the declaration under PMGK amount on 'gross basis' is first required to be set off against the declaration of Rs. 7,00,00,000/ whole of cash receipts amounting to Rs. 2,97,37,000/ setting off against the dec 37. After reducing the amount of Rs. 2,97,37,000/ Rs.7,00,00,000/ is available for setting off against the cash receipts for AY 2016 preceding years. this year, the appellant earned an amount of Rs. 4,30,18,7271 commission in cash. At the time of search operation, Shri Udhavdas Rupchandani admitted this cash income in the statement recorded us 132(4) of the Act, but mentioned tha ass income in the statement recorded us PMGKY was made. Till date, the appellant has not disputed the receipt of said cash income of Rs. 4,30,18,7271 the setting off of same against the declaration unde amount available for setting off against the cash receipts for A.Y. 2016 17 is only at Rs. 4,02,63,000/ allowed the benefit of setting off only upto the amount of Rs. 4,02,63,000/-. 38. Since, whole of exhausted against the cash receipts for A.Y. 2016 therefore, the appellant will not be eligible for any benefit of setting off of the cash receipts for A.Y. 2014 made in PMGKY Scheme, as claimed by it. 39. Regarding the declaration made under IDS claimed set off for Rs. 1,00,00,000/ perusal of Form undisclosed income were declared by the appellant under IDS Sr. No. A.Y. to which the undisclosed income pertains 2012 2013 2015 Total Since undisclosed income of Rs. 25,00,000/ A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. project was incurred by the company Year. Although, I have held that the income embedded in the 'on-money' is to be estimated @ 50% of the 'on money but that is after considering the cash expenses recorded in the seized documents which were incurred during the period prior to F.Y. 17. In such situation, whole of this cash receipt amounting to Rs. was available to the appellant for deposit in the PMGK Scheme because as per PMGKY Scheme, a declarant was required to disclose the undisclosed income represented in the form of deposits or cash available with the appellant. Therefore, while granting the setting off benefit against the declaration under PMGKY, this cash receipt amount on 'gross basis' is first required to be set off against the declaration of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- declared in PMGKY. Accordingly, the whole of cash receipts amounting to Rs. 2,97,37,000/- are eligible for setting off against the declaration made under PMGKY. 37. After reducing the amount of Rs. 2,97,37,000/- from the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000/-, the balance amount comes to Rs. 4,02,63,000/ is available for setting off against the cash receipts for AY 2016 preceding years. As per the assessment order for A.Y. 2016 this year, the appellant earned an amount of Rs. 4,30,18,7271 commission in cash. At the time of search operation, Shri Udhavdas Rupchandani admitted this cash income in the statement recorded us 2(4) of the Act, but mentioned tha ass income in the statement recorded us PMGKY was made. Till date, the appellant has not disputed the receipt of said cash income of Rs. 4,30,18,7271- and has requested the setting off of same against the declaration under PMGKY. Since the amount available for setting off against the cash receipts for A.Y. 2016 17 is only at Rs. 4,02,63,000/-, accordingly. the appellant can be allowed the benefit of setting off only upto the amount of Rs. 38. Since, whole of the amount disclosed under PMGKY, 2016 gets exhausted against the cash receipts for A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017 therefore, the appellant will not be eligible for any benefit of setting off of the cash receipts for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16, against the decla made in PMGKY Scheme, as claimed by it. 39. Regarding the declaration made under IDS-2016, the appellant has claimed set off for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as declared under IDS perusal of Form-1 filed under IDS-2016 suggests thatfollowing d income were declared by the appellant under IDS A.Y. to which the undisclosed income pertains Amount of Undisclosed Income 2012-13 25,00,000 2013-14 25,00,000 2015-16 50,00,000 Total 1,00,00,000 Since undisclosed income of Rs. 25,00,000/- each, were disclosed for 13 and 2013-14 and the present appeals are for A.Y. 2014 M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 16 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. Year. Although, I have held that the money' is to be estimated @ 50% of the 'on- r considering the cash expenses recorded in the seized documents which were incurred during the period prior to F.Y. 17. In such situation, whole of this cash receipt amounting to Rs. was available to the appellant for deposit in the PMGKY Scheme because as per PMGKY Scheme, a declarant was required to disclose the undisclosed income represented in the form of deposits or cash available with the appellant. Therefore, while granting the setting Y, this cash receipt amount on 'gross basis' is first required to be set off against the declared in PMGKY. Accordingly, the are eligible for from the amount of , the balance amount comes to Rs. 4,02,63,000/-which is available for setting off against the cash receipts for AY 2016-17 and As per the assessment order for A.Y. 2016-17, during this year, the appellant earned an amount of Rs. 4,30,18,7271- as commission in cash. At the time of search operation, Shri Udhavdas Rupchandani admitted this cash income in the statement recorded us 2(4) of the Act, but mentioned tha ass income in the statement recorded us PMGKY was made. Till date, the appellant has not disputed and has requested r PMGKY. Since the amount available for setting off against the cash receipts for A.Y. 2016- , accordingly. the appellant can be allowed the benefit of setting off only upto the amount of Rs. the amount disclosed under PMGKY, 2016 gets 17 and 2017-18, therefore, the appellant will not be eligible for any benefit of setting off of 16, against the declaration 2016, the appellant has as declared under IDS-2016. A 2016 suggests thatfollowing d income were declared by the appellant under IDS-2016: Nature of Undisclosed Income Cash Cash Cash each, were disclosed for 14 and the present appeals are for A.Y. 2014-15 onwards, therefore no set off benefit for declaration made under IDS 2016 for A.Y. 2012 regards to the declaration for A.Y. 2015 declaration that the disclosure was made towards the cash income of 50,00,000/-. Since, the income detected during the search operation for which addition was made by the Assessing Officer was also of the nature of 'cash income', therefore, in my opinion the appellant should be given the benefit of this disclosure of Rs. 50,00,000/ addition made by the Assessing Officer, unless the s been claimed somewhere else. Accordingly, in order to avoid any double benefit the Assessing Officer is directed to verify that set off has not been allowed for this declared amount of Rs.50,00,000/ income of the appe declaration elsewhere, the appellant will be allowed the benefit of set off against the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 50,00,000/- for A.Y. 2015 40. Here it may be m undersigned that it has not claimed any allowance or set off anywhere against the said disclosure of Rs. 7,00,00,000/ Rs. 50,00,000/ it is found that the declaration made under PMGKY Scheme, 2016 or IDS 2016 is invalid or the appellant or any other group entity has taken the telescoping/set Scheme, 2016 or under IDS shall not be eligible for benefit of set Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 8.3 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed set off of the amount already declared by the assessee under the relevant schemes announc Government of India. The assessee has offered undisclosed income in the form of the cash under the IDS and cash deposited in banks under the PMGKY scheme. All the cash deposited and declared has been verified by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Ld. CIT(A) received from booking/sale of offices/shops in and thus assessee cannot be subjected to tax twice in respect of the same undisclosed income, once under the PMGKY and IDS and ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. onwards, therefore no set off benefit for declaration made under IDS 2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 can be allowed to the appellant. As regards to the declaration for A.Y. 2015-16, it is clear from the above declaration that the disclosure was made towards the cash income of . Since, the income detected during the search operation for h addition was made by the Assessing Officer was also of the nature of 'cash income', therefore, in my opinion the appellant should be given the benefit of this disclosure of Rs. 50,00,000/-, against the addition made by the Assessing Officer, unless the set off for same has been claimed somewhere else. Accordingly, in order to avoid any double benefit the Assessing Officer is directed to verify that set off has not been allowed for this declared amount of Rs.50,00,000/- against any other income of the appellant. In case, no set off benefit is availed on this IDS declaration elsewhere, the appellant will be allowed the benefit of set off against the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. for A.Y. 2015-16. 40. Here it may be mentioned that the appellant has stated before the undersigned that it has not claimed any allowance or set off anywhere against the said disclosure of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- under PMGKY Scheme or Rs. 50,00,000/- under IDS-2016 for A.Y. 2015-16. In case, at any it is found that the declaration made under PMGKY Scheme, 2016 or IDS 2016 is invalid or the appellant or any other group entity has taken the telescoping/set-off benefit of these disclosures made under PMGKY Scheme, 2016 or under IDS-2016 elsewhere, in that case, the appellant shall not be eligible for benefit of set-off allowed vide this order. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly.” We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed set off of the amount already declared by the assessee under the relevant schemes announc ment of India. The assessee has offered undisclosed income in the form of the cash under the IDS and cash deposited in banks under the PMGKY scheme. All the cash deposited and declared has been verified by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Ld. CIT(A) received from booking/sale of offices/shops in “Eagle Pride project and thus assessee cannot be subjected to tax twice in respect of the same undisclosed income, once under the PMGKY and IDS and M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 17 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. onwards, therefore no set off benefit for declaration made under IDS- can be allowed to the appellant. As 16, it is clear from the above declaration that the disclosure was made towards the cash income of Rs. . Since, the income detected during the search operation for h addition was made by the Assessing Officer was also of the nature of 'cash income', therefore, in my opinion the appellant should be , against the et off for same has been claimed somewhere else. Accordingly, in order to avoid any double benefit the Assessing Officer is directed to verify that set off has not been against any other llant. In case, no set off benefit is availed on this IDS declaration elsewhere, the appellant will be allowed the benefit of set off against the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. entioned that the appellant has stated before the undersigned that it has not claimed any allowance or set off anywhere under PMGKY Scheme or 16. In case, at any stage it is found that the declaration made under PMGKY Scheme, 2016 or IDS- 2016 is invalid or the appellant or any other group entity has taken the off benefit of these disclosures made under PMGKY in that case, the appellant off allowed vide this order. The We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed set off of the amount already declared by the assessee under the relevant schemes announced by the ment of India. The assessee has offered undisclosed income in the form of the cash under the IDS and cash deposited in banks under the PMGKY scheme. All the cash deposited and declared has been verified by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Ld. CIT(A) as Eagle Pride project” and thus assessee cannot be subjected to tax twice in respect of the same undisclosed income, once under the PMGKY and IDS and second under the provisions of section 15 counsel has disputed only the factual observation by the ld CIT(A) that the project “Eagle Pride” was completed in previous year corresponding o AY 2017 said project was completed in FY 2017 2018-19. But, we find that entire on to have been received in the period prior to demonetization in old currency and thus any way assessee cannot be granted benefit for assessment years subsequent to the demonetization period. opinion, finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is justified and we do not find any error in the same. A the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. 9. Now, we take up various grounds raised by the asse well as by the Revenue 9.1 The grounds of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Jaw, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A o invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without even appreciating the facts fully and properly. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full benefit/set off of the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ Scheme of 2016. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the proper benefit/ set off of the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000 / Mantri Garb Kalyan Yojna Scheme of 2016. ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. second under the provisions of section 153A of the A counsel has disputed only the factual observation by the ld CIT(A) that the project “Eagle Pride” was completed in previous year corresponding o AY 2017-18, whereas according to the assessee said project was completed in FY 2017-18 corresponding to 19. But, we find that entire on-money shown has been shown to have been received in the period prior to demonetization in old currency and thus any way assessee cannot be granted benefit for assessment years subsequent to the demonetization period. finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is justified not find any error in the same. Accordingly the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. we take up various grounds raised by the asse Revenue in appeals. of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 15 are reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Jaw, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A o invalid and bad in law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without even appreciating the facts fully and properly. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full benefit/set off of the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-disclosed under the Income Disclosure Scheme of 2016. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the proper benefit/ set off of the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000 /- disclosed under the Pradhan Mantri Garb Kalyan Yojna Scheme of 2016. M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 18 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. 3A of the Act. The ld counsel has disputed only the factual observation by the ld CIT(A) that the project “Eagle Pride” was completed in previous year 18, whereas according to the assessee 18 corresponding to AY money shown has been shown to have been received in the period prior to demonetization in old currency and thus any way assessee cannot be granted benefit for assessment years subsequent to the demonetization period. In our finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is justified ccordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. we take up various grounds raised by the assessee as of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Jaw, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the act is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without even appreciating the facts fully On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full benefit/set off of the disclosed under the Income Disclosure the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the proper benefit/ set off of disclosed under the Pradhan 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in the on-money received at 50% and upholding the addition to that extend and that too without assigning any proper reason. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, t learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.7,30,000/ 7. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,12,818/ 9.2 In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity of the assessment order pa issue has been raised for the first time before us and not raised before the ld CIT(A), the ld Counsel of the assessee opted for raising this ground as additional ground and for which ld DR did not object. In the additional was no incriminating material qua the additions made and assessment years involved being unabated, no addition could have been made in the case of assessee. The a purely of legal nature and no investigation of fresh facts required, it was admitted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd 9.3 We have heard rival submission on the additional ground. We find that the Assessing Officer has while making addition. The ld Counsel contented that valuables were found duri indicating on money received in cash in respect of the sales of shops/office in one of the project of the assessee. A learned counsel, since the cash on ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in money received at 50% and upholding the addition to that extend and that too without assigning any proper reason. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, t learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.7,30,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the act. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,12,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity of the assessment order passed under section 153A of the A issue has been raised for the first time before us and not raised ld CIT(A), the ld Counsel of the assessee opted for raising this ground as additional ground and for which ld DR did not object. In the additional ground, the ld counsel prayed was no incriminating material qua the additions made and years involved being unabated, no addition could have been made in the case of assessee. The additional ground being legal nature and no investigation of fresh facts required, it was admitted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in NTPC Ltd 229 ITR 383 (SC). We have heard rival submission on the additional ground. We find that the Assessing Officer has referred to the seized document while making addition. The ld Counsel contented that valuables were found during search action except some indicating on money received in cash in respect of the sales of shops/office in one of the project of the assessee. A ince the cash on-money was already declared in M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 19 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in money received at 50% and upholding the addition to that extend and that too without assigning any proper reason. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of 69C of the act. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. as unexplained investment u/s 09 of the act. In the ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged validity of ssed under section 153A of the Act. As this issue has been raised for the first time before us and not raised ld CIT(A), the ld Counsel of the assessee opted for raising this ground as additional ground and for which ld DR did not the ld counsel prayed that there was no incriminating material qua the additions made and years involved being unabated, no addition could have dditional ground being legal nature and no investigation of fresh facts required, it was admitted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in We have heard rival submission on the additional ground. We to the seized document while making addition. The ld Counsel contented that no cash or ng search action except some loosepapers indicating on money received in cash in respect of the sales of shops/office in one of the project of the assessee. According to the ready declared in PMGKY and IDS schemes, not in the nature of incriminating material. support of the contention that no addition could be sustained without based on any incriminating material rel of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of warehousing Corporation (nhava Sheva) Ltd 374 ITR 645 (Bom). We find that entries of on money received in cash in respect of sales of shops /office was not found to be entered accounts. In our opinion, when the entries for such cash on were not recorded in regular books of account, it was certainly in the nature of incriminating material. Further, in the books of account even the entries of the money d scheme were also not search proceeding. In such circumstances, the claim of the assessee that there was no incriminating material qua the addition made is without any basis, hence rejec accordingly dismissed. 10. The ground No. to adjudicate upon specifically and therefore same is dismissed as infructuous. 11. The ground No. amount of ₹1,00,00,000/ scheme of 2016. This ground was not pressed before us and therefore accordingly same is dismissed as infructuous. ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. schemes, therefore, on-money details found was not in the nature of incriminating material. The learned counsel support of the contention that no addition could be sustained without based on any incriminating material relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of warehousing Corporation (nhava Sheva) Ltd 374 ITR 645 (Bom). We find that entries of on money received in cash in respect of sales of shops /office was not found to be entered in regular books of In our opinion, when the entries for such cash on were not recorded in regular books of account, it was certainly in the nature of incriminating material. Further, in the books of account even the entries of the money declared in PMGKY and IDS not found to be recorded during the course of the . In such circumstances, the claim of the assessee that there was no incriminating material qua the addition made is without any basis, hence rejected. The ground No. 1 of the appeal is accordingly dismissed. The ground No. 2 being general in nature, we are not required to adjudicate upon specifically and therefore same is dismissed as The ground No. 3 of the appeal relates to benefit/set off of the 000/- disclosure under the Income D scheme of 2016. This ground was not pressed before us and therefore accordingly same is dismissed as infructuous. M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 20 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. money details found was The learned counsel in support of the contention that no addition could be sustained ied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental warehousing Corporation (nhava Sheva) Ltd 374 ITR 645 (Bom). We find that entries of on money received in cash in respect of sales in regular books of In our opinion, when the entries for such cash on-money were not recorded in regular books of account, it was certainly in the nature of incriminating material. Further, in the books of eclared in PMGKY and IDS during the course of the . In such circumstances, the claim of the assessee that there was no incriminating material qua the addition made is ted. The ground No. 1 of the appeal is being general in nature, we are not required to adjudicate upon specifically and therefore same is dismissed as to benefit/set off of the disclosure under the Income Disclosure scheme of 2016. This ground was not pressed before us and therefore accordingly same is dismissed as infructuous. 12. The ground No. 4 of the appeal relates of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- adjudicated by us in para no. finding above, the ground dismissed. 13. The ground No. the on-money amount as undisclosed income CIT(A). The learned DR submitted that the department is in appeal on the issue of relief of 50% expenditure granted by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessment year( threshold tax effect fixed by the Central Board of filing appeal before the T under consideration no appeal effect, but in other assessment years, the R issue. We have already adjudicated thi 7.4 above, thus following our appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 14. The ground No. Assessing Officer of ₹ section 69 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in dispute from para 51 to para 56 of the impugned order . A to the facts mentioned of bundle No. five assessment year incurred ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. ound No. 4 of the appeal relates to set o under PMGKY. The issue in dispute has been adjudicated by us in para no. 8.3 of this order, thus following our finding above, the ground No. 4(four) of the appeal of the assessee is The ground No. 5 of the appeal relates to sustaining 50% of money amount as undisclosed income sustained CIT(A). The learned DR submitted that the department is in appeal on the issue of relief of 50% expenditure granted by the Ld. CIT(A) (s) except where the tax effect is threshold tax effect fixed by the Central Board of Direct T filing appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that in the year under consideration no appeal has been filed on account of low tax in other assessment years, the Revenue has We have already adjudicated this issue in dispute in para No. , thus following our finding; the ground No. appeal of the assessee is dismissed. . 6 of the appeal relates to addition ₹7,30,000/- as unexplained expenditure under ct. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in dispute from para 51 to para 56 of the impugned order . A facts mentioned by the ld CIT(A), the seized paper No. seven of bundle No. five indicated detail of cash payment for the incurred for labour expenses . The assessee M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 21 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. to set off of disclosure under PMGKY. The issue in dispute has been hus following our of the appeal of the assessee is tes to sustaining 50% of sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). The learned DR submitted that the department is in appeal on the issue of relief of 50% expenditure granted by the Ld. CIT(A) tax effect is below the Direct Taxes for ribunal. It was submitted that in the year filed on account of low tax evenue has agitated this issue in dispute in para No. No. 5(five) of the addition made by the unexplained expenditure under ct. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in dispute from para 51 to para 56 of the impugned order . According , the seized paper No. seven cash payment for the . The assessee submitted that those expenses were accounts on the basis of self the statement record of the assessee company however were incurred out of cash receipt of on Officer in the assessment order rejected the contention of the assessee that those expens The Ld. CIT(A), on one side deleted the addition 69C of the Act on the ground that if the expenses are of unaccounted nature cash receipt from the “ shown for the assessment year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to telescoping and consider the cash on said expenditure. But on the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in terms of section 37 of the A “56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be mentioned that the Director of the company has admitted that these expenses were booked in the books of accounts on the basis of self made vouchers. It is a well settled law that any expenditure booked in the books of accounts cannot be allowed as deduction unless reliable evidences are furnished. The appellant has failed to furnish any reliable evidence in support of these expenses. Accordingly, the deduction of Rs.7,30,000/ Income Tax Act cannot be allowed. Therefor 7,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer is upheld on the grounds that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of these expenses. The ground No. 2 raised by the appellant is disposed accordingly.” 14.1. We have heard rival s dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It has been ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. submitted that those expenses were claimed in basis of self-made vouchers. During the course of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the A of the assessee company however submitted that those expenses urred out of cash receipt of on-money. The Assessing assessment order rejected the contention of the those expenses were incurred out of cash on The Ld. CIT(A), on one side deleted the addition made under section ct on the ground that if the expenses are of than same is presumed to be incurred cash receipt from the “Eagle Project” amounting to shown for the assessment year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to give onsider the cash on-money received a expenditure. But on the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the in terms of section 37 of the Act observing as under: 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be that the Director of the company has admitted that these expenses were booked in the books of accounts on the basis of self made vouchers. It is a well settled law that any expenditure booked in the books of accounts cannot be allowed as deduction unless reliable evidences are furnished. The appellant has failed to furnish any reliable evidence in support of these expenses. Accordingly, the deduction of Rs.7,30,000/- as claimed by the appellant us 37 of the Income Tax Act cannot be allowed. Therefore, the addition of Rs. made by the Assessing Officer is upheld on the grounds that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of these expenses. The ground No. 2 raised by the appellant is disposed have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It has been M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 22 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. claimed in the books of . During the course of ed under section 132(4) of the Act the director submitted that those expenses money. The Assessing assessment order rejected the contention of the es were incurred out of cash on-money. made under section ct on the ground that if the expenses are of than same is presumed to be incurred out of Eagle Project” amounting to ₹1,02,76,600/- shown for the assessment year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) give benefit of money received as source of expenditure. But on the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the ct observing as under: 56. As regards to the genuineness of the expenditure, it may be that the Director of the company has admitted that these expenses were booked in the books of accounts on the basis of self- made vouchers. It is a well settled law that any expenditure booked in the books of accounts cannot be allowed as deduction unless cogent reliable evidences are furnished. The appellant has failed to furnish any reliable evidence in support of these expenses. Accordingly, the as claimed by the appellant us 37 of the e, the addition of Rs. made by the Assessing Officer is upheld on the grounds that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of these expenses. The ground No. 2 raised by the appellant is disposed ubmission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. It has been admitted on the part of the assessee that those expenses were booked in the books of accounts on the basis of the self vouchers. In such circumst establish with supporting evidence incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. In view of the failure on the part of the assessee in doing so, we do not find any error in the o The ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee dismissed. 15. In ground no. 7 ₹1,12,818/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment for purchase of a plot at Ulhasnagar ( under section 69 of the A assessee contested that said expenses were incurred by M/s Kesal Construction Company assessee claimed that amount should be covered by the declaration under IDS and PMGKY by the assessee, but the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and made addition under section 69 of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), howev allowed the benefit of telescoping against the receipt of cash on money. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “48. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. The appellant is claiming that it had a joint venture with M/s Kestral Construction Co. with regard to this plot and the said payment of Rs. 1, 12,818/ ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. admitted on the part of the assessee that those expenses were booked in the books of accounts on the basis of the self vouchers. In such circumstances, onus is on the assessee to establish with supporting evidences that said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. In view of the failure on the part of the assessee in doing so, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. of the appeal of the assessee 7, the assessee is seeking deletion of addition of made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained chase of a plot at Ulhasnagar ( under section 69 of the Act . Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee contested that said expenses were incurred by M/s Kesal Construction Company and not by the assessee. Alternatively that amount should be covered by the declaration under IDS and PMGKY by the assessee, but the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and made addition under ct. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), howev allowed the benefit of telescoping against the receipt of cash on money. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as 48. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. The appellant is claiming that it had a joint venture with M/s Kestral Construction Co. with regard to this plot and the said payment of Rs. 1, 12,818/- was not made by it as the same relates to M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 23 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. admitted on the part of the assessee that those expenses were booked in the books of accounts on the basis of the self-made ances, onus is on the assessee to that said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. In view of the failure on the part of the assessee in doing so, we do not rder of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly , the assessee is seeking deletion of addition of made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained chase of a plot at Ulhasnagar (Netaji Nagar) . Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee contested that said expenses were incurred by M/s Kesal and not by the assessee. Alternatively, the that amount should be covered by the declaration under IDS and PMGKY by the assessee, but the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and made addition under ct. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), however allowed the benefit of telescoping against the receipt of cash on money. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as 48. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. The appellant is claiming that it had a joint venture with M/s Kestral Construction Co. with regard to this plot and the said s the same relates to M/s Kestrel Construction Co. The appellant has also submitted that the said joint venture eventually did not work out. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the appellant company has not denied the fact of making of investments accounts. In fact, as per the copy of ledger account for the said plot in its books of accounts, as filed by the appellant for A.Y. 2017 that the opening balance of investment in the said 01/04/2016 was Rs. 6,78,60,000/ as on 31/03/2017 was Rs. 7,73,98,972/ appellant that it did not make any investment in the Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar is not correct. On the other hand any agreement or confirmation has been filed by the appellant which could suggest that this investment of Rs.1.12,818/ Kestral construction co. and not by the appellant company. In view of this, the contention o was not made by the appellant company cannot be accepted. The said paper was seized from the premises of the appellant and accordingly the onus of explaining the contents of same, lies on the appellant. No on this seized paper, it is mentioned that the said cash payment was made by Kestral Construction Co. Accordingly, the presumption is that the said cash payment was made by the appellant company. Therefore, it is held that the payment of Rs. 1,12,81 recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company. 49. However, it is a well settled legal position that where there are two separate additions, one on account of suppression of profit/cash receipts and another on acc case one has to be telescoped into the other, resulting only in one addition. Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals through various decisions have lay down a basic principle that the same income should not be taxed twice i.e. one at the time of generation and other at the time of application. Reliance in this regard is placed on following case laws: i. Kanitlal and Bros Vs. ACIT [1995]52 ITD 412 (Pune In this case, it was held as below: 'It would be contrary to the canons of law to tax the same amount twice, i.e. as borrowings and as cost of assets. The borrowings were utilised to acquire the assets. assessee, that the amount as reflected in the 'seized paper' represented borrowings of the assessee, was accepted, it would be proper to presume that such amount was utilised for the acquisition of assets found at the time ii. CIT Vs. K.S.M. Guruswamy nadir & Sons [1984] 149 ITR 127 (Mad) In this case, it there are two separate additions, one on account of suppression of profit and another on account of cash credit, it is open to the assessee to explain that the suppressed profit had been brought ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. M/s Kestrel Construction Co. The appellant has also submitted that the said joint venture eventually did not work out. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the appellant company has not denied the fact of making of investments in plot at Netaji area of Ulhasnagar in its books of accounts. In fact, as per the copy of ledger account for the said plot in its books of accounts, as filed by the appellant for A.Y. 2017- that the opening balance of investment in the said 01/04/2016 was Rs. 6,78,60,000/- and closing balance of investment as on 31/03/2017 was Rs. 7,73,98,972/- therefore, the claim of the appellant that it did not make any investment in the Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar is not correct. On the other hand, no evidence in the form of any agreement or confirmation has been filed by the appellant which could suggest that this investment of Rs.1.12,818/- was made by Ms Kestral construction co. and not by the appellant company. In view of this, the contention of the appellant that the payment of Rs. 1,12,818/ was not made by the appellant company cannot be accepted. The said paper was seized from the premises of the appellant and accordingly the onus of explaining the contents of same, lies on the appellant. No on this seized paper, it is mentioned that the said cash payment was made by Kestral Construction Co. Accordingly, the presumption is that the said cash payment was made by the appellant company. Therefore, it is held that the payment of Rs. 1,12,818/- is unexplained and is not recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company. 49. However, it is a well settled legal position that where there are two separate additions, one on account of suppression of profit/cash receipts and another on account of cash investment/cash expenditure, in that case one has to be telescoped into the other, resulting only in one addition. Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals through various decisions have lay down a basic principle that the same income should not be taxed twice i.e. one at the time of generation and other at the time of Reliance in this regard is placed on following case laws: Kanitlal and Bros Vs. ACIT [1995]52 ITD 412 (Pune In this case, it was held as below: 'It would be contrary to the canons of law to tax the same amount twice, i.e. as borrowings and as cost of assets. The borrowings were utilised to acquire the assets. Once the contention of the assessee, that the amount as reflected in the 'seized paper' epresented borrowings of the assessee, was accepted, it would be proper to presume that such amount was utilised for the acquisition of assets found at the time of search. CIT Vs. K.S.M. Guruswamy nadir & Sons [1984] 149 ITR 127 (Mad) In this case, it was held by Hon'ble Madras High Court that when there are two separate additions, one on account of suppression of profit and another on account of cash credit, it is open to the assessee to explain that the suppressed profit had been brought M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 24 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. M/s Kestrel Construction Co. The appellant has also submitted that the said joint venture eventually did not work out. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the appellant company has not denied the fact of in plot at Netaji area of Ulhasnagar in its books of accounts. In fact, as per the copy of ledger account for the said plot in its books of accounts, as filed by the appellant for A.Y. 2017-18, it is seen that the opening balance of investment in the said plot as on and closing balance of investment therefore, the claim of the appellant that it did not make any investment in the Netaji Plot, , no evidence in the form of any agreement or confirmation has been filed by the appellant which was made by Ms Kestral construction co. and not by the appellant company. In view of f the appellant that the payment of Rs. 1,12,818/- was not made by the appellant company cannot be accepted. The said paper was seized from the premises of the appellant and accordingly the onus of explaining the contents of same, lies on the appellant. Nowhere, on this seized paper, it is mentioned that the said cash payment was made by Kestral Construction Co. Accordingly, the presumption is that the said cash payment was made by the appellant company. Therefore, is unexplained and is not recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company. 49. However, it is a well settled legal position that where there are two separate additions, one on account of suppression of profit/cash receipts ount of cash investment/cash expenditure, in that case one has to be telescoped into the other, resulting only in one addition. Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals through various decisions have lay down a basic principle that the same income should not be taxed twice i.e. one at the time of generation and other at the time of Reliance in this regard is placed on following case laws: Kanitlal and Bros Vs. ACIT [1995]52 ITD 412 (Pune-Trib] 'It would be contrary to the canons of law to tax the same amount twice, i.e. as borrowings and as cost of assets. The borrowings Once the contention of the assessee, that the amount as reflected in the 'seized paper' epresented borrowings of the assessee, was accepted, it would be proper to presume that such amount was utilised for the CIT Vs. K.S.M. Guruswamy nadir & Sons [1984] 149 ITR was held by Hon'ble Madras High Court that when there are two separate additions, one on account of suppression of profit and another on account of cash credit, it is open to the assessee to explain that the suppressed profit had been brought in cash credi resulting only in one addition. It was therefore held that the Tribunal was right in its view in telescoping the additions made towards the cash credit. iii. CIT Vs. Jawanmal Jemaji Gandhi [19851 1551 ITR 353: 1984] 39 CTR 127: [1983] The theory of telescoping could be applied in cases where additions in respect of unexplained money/unexplained investment are sought to be made in the hands of the assessee. For example, if there is an add income or unexplained cash credits and also certain addition in respect of unexplained investment, then it can be pleaded by the assessee that the unexplained investment is sourced out of the income already taxed as unexplai 50. In the present case, the appellant company had received cash in the form of 'on-money' from Eagle Pride Project amounting to Rs. 1,02,76,600/- during the year. of such 'on-money and has only embedded in such on has received cash amounting to Rs. 1.02,76,600/ consideration and income on such on such cash receipt the appellant for making investment in Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar to the extent of Rs. 1,12,818/ regarding the investment of Rs. 1, 12,818/ appellant. However, in order to avoid any double benefit, the AO is directed to ensure that telescoping has not been allowed for these cash receipts amounting to Rs. 1,02,76,600/ any other group entity/person. I on these cash receiptselsewhere, the appellant will be allowed the benefit of telescoping against the addition of Rs. 1, 12,818/ raised by the appellant is disposed in the manner as discussed abo 15.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has already allowed the benefit of the telescoping of the expenses against the received as on money for the year under consideration. This ground of the appeal therefore does not survive, and therefore accordingly dismissed as infructuous. ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. in cash credits and one has to be telescoped into the other resulting only in one addition. It was therefore held that the Tribunal was right in its view in telescoping the additions made towards the cash credit. CIT Vs. Jawanmal Jemaji Gandhi [19851 1551 ITR 353: 1984] 39 CTR 127: [1983] 15 Taxman 487 (Bom The theory of telescoping could be applied in cases where additions in respect of unexplained money/unexplained investment are sought to be made in the hands of the assessee. For example, if there is an addition in respect of undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits and also certain addition in respect of unexplained investment, then it can be pleaded by the assessee that the unexplained investment is sourced out of the income already taxed as unexplained cash credits. 50. In the present case, the appellant company had received cash in the money' from Eagle Pride Project amounting to Rs. during the year. The appellant has not disputed the receipt money and has only disputed the quantum of income embedded in such on-money. I have already upheld that the appellant has received cash amounting to Rs. 1.02,76,600/- during the year under consideration and income on such on-money is to be computed @ 50% of such cash receipts. In this manner, the sufficient cash was available with the appellant for making investment in Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar to the extent of Rs. 1,12,818/-. Thus, it is held that the telescoping benefit regarding the investment of Rs. 1, 12,818/- should be gi appellant. However, in order to avoid any double benefit, the AO is directed to ensure that telescoping has not been allowed for these cash receipts amounting to Rs. 1,02,76,600/- against addition made in case of any other group entity/person. In case, no telescoping benefit is availed on these cash receiptselsewhere, the appellant will be allowed the benefit of telescoping against the addition of Rs. 1, 12,818/-. The ground No. 3 raised by the appellant is disposed in the manner as discussed abo have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has already allowed the benefit of the telescoping of the expenses against the availability of cash s on money for the year under consideration. This ground of the appeal therefore does not survive, and therefore accordingly dismissed as infructuous. M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 25 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. ts and one has to be telescoped into the other resulting only in one addition. It was therefore held that the Tribunal was right in its view in telescoping the additions made CIT Vs. Jawanmal Jemaji Gandhi [19851 1551 ITR 353: 15 Taxman 487 (Bom-HC). The theory of telescoping could be applied in cases where additions in respect of unexplained money/unexplained investment are sought to be made in the hands of the assessee. ition in respect of undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits and also certain addition in respect of unexplained investment, then it can be pleaded by the assessee that the unexplained investment is sourced out of the 50. In the present case, the appellant company had received cash in the money' from Eagle Pride Project amounting to Rs. The appellant has not disputed the receipt disputed the quantum of income money. I have already upheld that the appellant during the year under money is to be computed @ 50% of s. In this manner, the sufficient cash was available with the appellant for making investment in Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar to the . Thus, it is held that the telescoping benefit should be given to the appellant. However, in order to avoid any double benefit, the AO is directed to ensure that telescoping has not been allowed for these cash against addition made in case of n case, no telescoping benefit is availed on these cash receiptselsewhere, the appellant will be allowed the benefit . The ground No. 3 raised by the appellant is disposed in the manner as discussed above.” have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has already allowed the benefit of availability of cash s on money for the year under consideration. This ground of the appeal therefore does not survive, and therefore accordingly 16. The ground No. 8 being general in nature, same is dismissed as infructuous. 17. Now, we take up the assessment year 2015 reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and r.w.s. 153A of the act is invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the ci law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without even appreciating the facts fully and properly. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the l benefit/set off of the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ under the Income Disclosure Scheme of 2016. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the benefit / set off of the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000/ disclosed under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna Scheme of 2016. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit clement upholding the addition to that extend and that too without assigning any proper reason. 6. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT( made of Rs.7,25,000/ 69C of the act. i 7. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.32,588/ the act in purchase of a plot at Ulhasnagar. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,30,00.000/ 69 of the act in purc 17.1 The grounds raised by the ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. The ground No. 8 being general in nature, same is dismissed we take up the appeals of the assessee and assessment year 2015-16. The grounds raised by the assessee reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and r.w.s. 153A of the act is invalid and bad in law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without even appreciating the facts fully and properly. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full benefit/set off of the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ under the Income Disclosure Scheme of 2016. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the benefit / set off of the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000/ disclosed under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna Scheme of 2016. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit clement embedded in the on-money received at 50% and upholding the addition to that extend and that too without assigning any proper reason. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.7,25,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the act. i 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.32,588/- as unexplained investment us 69 of the act in purchase of a plot at Ulhasnagar. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs. 1,30,00.000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the act in purchase of a plot at Sinner, Nashik grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 26 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. The ground No. 8 being general in nature, same is dismissed of the assessee and Revenue for 16. The grounds raised by the assessee are On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and r.w.s. rcumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in earned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full benefit/set off of the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-disclosed On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the proper benefit / set off of the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000/- disclosed under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit money received at 50% and upholding the addition to that extend and that too without 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in A) erred in upholding the addition as unexplained expenditure u/s 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition investment us 69 of On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition as unexplained investment u/s hase of a plot at Sinner, Nashik reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating 50% of 'on money' received by the assessee as undisclosed without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish reliable, cogent & corroborative documentary evidences to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the commercial project. 2. On the facts and in the ci law, the Ld CIT(A's estimation of 50% of 'on money' received as undisclosed income of the assessee is ad unwarranted, baseless, unreasonable and unjustified as the assessee has not been able to prove and subst cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the project. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Director of the company in the statement recorded us 132(4) of the Income Tax Act from sale of project not accounted for in its regular books of accounts and offered the same for taxation without making any claim of cash expenses relating to the project. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances o law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing telescoping benefit regarding the investment of Rs. 32,588/ Ulhasnagar against *on fact that the assessee has failed to submit cogent and reliable e been made from 'on money' receipts. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing set declaration of Rs.50,00,000/ Declaration without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to prove that said declaration under Income Declaration Scheme from undisclosed income out of *on money' receipt 18. In ground no. 1 validity of the reassessment. We have already adjudicated the identical issue in assessment year 2014 our finding the issue in dismissed. ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating 50% of 'on money' received by the assessee as undisclosed without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish reliable, cogent & corroborative documentary evidences to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the commercial project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A's estimation of 50% of 'on money' received as undisclosed income of the assessee is ad-hoc, arbitrary, unwarranted, baseless, unreasonable and unjustified as the assessee has not been able to prove and subst cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Director of the company in the statement recorded us 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 admitted cash receipts as 'on from sale of project not accounted for in its regular books of accounts and offered the same for taxation without making any claim of cash expenses relating to the project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing telescoping benefit regarding the investment of Rs. 32,588/- in Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar against *on-money' without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to establish that the said investment has been made from 'on money' receipts. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing set declaration of Rs.50,00,000/- made under Income Declaration Scheme-2016 against undisclosed income without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to prove that said declaration under Income Declaration Scheme from undisclosed income out of *on money' receipt 1 of the appeal, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reassessment. We have already adjudicated the identical issue in assessment year 2014-15 and therefore following our finding the issue in dispute, the ground No. 1 of the appeal is M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 27 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating 50% of 'on money' received by the assessee as undisclosed income without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish reliable, cogent & corroborative documentary evidences to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the commercial project. rcumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A's estimation of 50% of 'on money' received hoc, arbitrary, unwarranted, baseless, unreasonable and unjustified as the assessee has not been able to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Director of the company in the statement recorded us 132(4) of the , 1961 admitted cash receipts as 'on-money' from sale of project not accounted for in its regular books of accounts and offered the same for taxation without making any claim of cash expenses relating to the project. f the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing telescoping benefit in Netaji Plot, money' without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to submit cogent and vidences to establish that the said investment has On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing set-off of made under Income 2016 against undisclosed income without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to prove that said declaration under Income Declaration Scheme-2016 was from undisclosed income out of *on money' receipts. , the assessee has challenged the validity of the reassessment. We have already adjudicated the 15 and therefore following the ground No. 1 of the appeal is 19. The ground No. 2 nature same is dismissed as infructuous. 20. The ground No. same is dismissed as infructuous. 21. The ground No. benefit of the amount disclosed under PMGKY scheme of 2016. The identical ground has been adjudicated this order. Accordingly following our finding, the ground of the appeal of the assessee dismissed. 22. The ground no. 5 off of declaration under IDS scheme 2016. This issue has already been adjudicated bias in preceding para no therefore following our find revenue is also dismissed. 23. The ground no. No. 1 to 3 of the appeal of the R the on money received by the assessee as profit of the ass issue of profit element in on money received has already been adjudicated by us in para No. 7.4 of this order, t our finding, the ground dismissed, whereas the ground No revenue are allowed. ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. 2 of the appeal of the assessee, being general in nature same is dismissed as infructuous. The ground No. 3 of the appeal was not pressed and therefore same is dismissed as infructuous. The ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee benefit of the amount disclosed under PMGKY scheme of 2016. The identical ground has been adjudicated by us in preceding paras of this order. Accordingly following our finding, the ground of the appeal of the assessee dismissed. nd no. 5 of the appeal of the Revenue relates to set off of declaration under IDS scheme 2016. This issue has already been adjudicated bias in preceding para no 8.3 o therefore following our finding, this ground of the appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. The ground no. 5 of the appeal of the assessee and ground o. 1 to 3 of the appeal of the Revenue, relate to sustaining 50% of the on money received by the assessee as profit of the ass issue of profit element in on money received has already been us in para No. 7.4 of this order, therefore following our finding, the ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, whereas the ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the a revenue are allowed. M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 28 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. of the appeal of the assessee, being general in of the appeal was not pressed and therefore of the appeal of the assessee relates to benefit of the amount disclosed under PMGKY scheme of 2016. The in preceding paras of this order. Accordingly following our finding, the ground of the evenue relates to set off of declaration under IDS scheme 2016. This issue has already 8.3 of this order, this ground of the appeal of the of the appeal of the assessee and ground relate to sustaining 50% of the on money received by the assessee as profit of the assessee. The issue of profit element in on money received has already been herefore following of the appeal of the assessee is f the appeal of the 24. The ground No.6 ( addition of ₹7,25,000/ unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the A of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced “61. The ground No. 2 raised by the appellant for A.Y. 2015 similar to the ground no. 2 raised for A. Y. 2014 Y. 2015-16 are similar to the facts of A.Y. following my decision for A.Y. 2014 addition for Rs. 7.25,000/ appellant has sufficient cash receipts during the year to coverup the said cash expenditure. However the appellant has booked the said cash expenditure under the head labour expenses' on the basis of self substantiate the same by way of credible evidences, accordingly, no deduction for this of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of expenditure, is upheld. 24.1. The identical issue has been adjudicated by us in assessment year 2014-15, therefore following our finding, the ground No. the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 25. The ground no. 7 expenditure under section 69 fo Nagar, Ulhasnagar. The ground No. relate to issue of allowing telescoping benefit to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) . The Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue as under: “62. The ground No. unaccounted investment of Rs. 32,588/ Ulhasnagar. The said ground is similar to the ground no. 3 raised for A.Y. 2014 similar to the facts for decision for A.Y. cash investment of Rs. 32,588/ ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. No.6 (six) of the appeal of the assessee relates to 25,000/- held by the Assessing Officer as iture under section 69C of the A of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced 61. The ground No. 2 raised by the appellant for A.Y. 2015 similar to the ground no. 2 raised for A. Y. 2014-15. The facts for A. 16 are similar to the facts of A.Y. 2014-15. Accordingly, following my decision for A.Y. 2014-15, it is held that no separate addition for Rs. 7.25,000/- can be made u/s 69C of the Act as the appellant has sufficient cash receipts during the year to coverup the said cash expenditure. However, as held in the A.Y. 2014 the appellant has booked the said cash expenditure under the head labour expenses' on the basis of self-made vouchers and failed to substantiate the same by way of credible evidences, accordingly, no deduction for this amount of Rs. 7,25,000/- can be allowed u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of expenditure, is upheld.” identical issue has been adjudicated by us in assessment 15, therefore following our finding, the ground No. the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The ground no. 7 of the appeal pertains to unexplained expenditure under section 69 for investment in plot of land at Netaji The ground No. 4 of the appeal of R relate to issue of allowing telescoping benefit to the assessee by the The Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue as under: 62. The ground No. 3 raised by the appellant is regarding the unaccounted investment of Rs. 32,588/- in the Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar. The said ground is similar to the ground no. 3 raised for A.Y. 2014-15. The facts for this issue for A.Y. 2015 similar to the facts for A.Y. 2014-15. Accordingly, following my decision for A.Y. 2014-15, it is held that the appellant has made a cash investment of Rs. 32,588/- in Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar during M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 29 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. of the appeal of the assessee relates to held by the Assessing Officer as iture under section 69C of the Act.The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: 61. The ground No. 2 raised by the appellant for A.Y. 2015-16 is 15. The facts for A. 15. Accordingly, 15, it is held that no separate can be made u/s 69C of the Act as the appellant has sufficient cash receipts during the year to coverup the , as held in the A.Y. 2014-15, since the appellant has booked the said cash expenditure under the head made vouchers and failed to substantiate the same by way of credible evidences, accordingly, no can be allowed u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the assessee has failed to identical issue has been adjudicated by us in assessment 15, therefore following our finding, the ground No. 6 of of the appeal pertains to unexplained in plot of land at Netaji 4 of the appeal of Revenue also relate to issue of allowing telescoping benefit to the assessee by the The Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue as under: 3 raised by the appellant is regarding the in the Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar. The said ground is similar to the ground no. 3 raised 15. The facts for this issue for A.Y. 2015-16 are 15. Accordingly, following my 15, it is held that the appellant has made a in Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar during the year under consideration which is not recorded in the books of accounts. Howe in cash as 'on it is held that the telescoping benefit regarding the investment of Rs. 32,588/- should be given to the appellant. The AO is however, directed to ensure that telescoping has not been allowed for these cash receipts amounting to Rs. 3,67,73,600/ made in case of any other group entity/person, in order to avoid any double benefit. In case, no telescoping benefit is availe these cash receipts elsewhere, the appellant will be allowed the benefit of telescoping against the addition of Rs. 32,588/ ground No. 3 raised by the appellant is disposed in the manner as discussed above. 25.1 The identical issue has been adj year 2014-15, therefore following our finding, the ground No. 7 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. the appeal of the revenue is concerned, we find that Ld. CIT(A) detailed finding held a for benefit/setoff for investment in the said plot. In our opinion, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is justified. The ground No. 4 (four) of the appeal of the R dismissed. 26. The ground no. 8 of the appeal of the assessee pertain addition made of ₹ unexplained investment in purchase of the plot at Simmer, Nashik , in terms of section 69 of the company in his statement admitted that amount of was paid in cash on account of on plot along with cheque payment of of the assessment proceeding, the authorised represen ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. the year under consideration which is not recorded in the books of accounts. However, as the appellant has received Rs. 3,67,73,600/ in cash as 'on-money' from the project namely Eagle Pride, therefore, it is held that the telescoping benefit regarding the investment of Rs. should be given to the appellant. The AO is however, directed to ensure that telescoping has not been allowed for these cash receipts amounting to Rs. 3,67,73,600/- against addition made in case of any other group entity/person, in order to avoid any double benefit. In case, no telescoping benefit is availe these cash receipts elsewhere, the appellant will be allowed the benefit of telescoping against the addition of Rs. 32,588/ ground No. 3 raised by the appellant is disposed in the manner as discussed above.” identical issue has been adjudicated by us in assessment 15, therefore following our finding, the ground No. 7 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. As far as ground No. four of the appeal of the revenue is concerned, we find that Ld. CIT(A) nding held availability of the cash received as on money for benefit/setoff for investment in the said plot. In our opinion, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is justified. The No. 4 (four) of the appeal of the Revenue The ground no. 8 of the appeal of the assessee pertain ₹1,39,00,000/- by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in purchase of the plot at Simmer, Nashik , in terms of section 69 of the Act. The director of the company in his statement admitted that amount of s paid in cash on account of on-money paid for purchase of the along with cheque payment of ₹33,00,000/-. During the course of the assessment proceeding, the authorised represen M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 30 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. the year under consideration which is not recorded in the books of ver, as the appellant has received Rs. 3,67,73,600/- money' from the project namely Eagle Pride, therefore, it is held that the telescoping benefit regarding the investment of Rs. should be given to the appellant. The AO is however, directed to ensure that telescoping has not been allowed for these against addition made in case of any other group entity/person, in order to avoid any double benefit. In case, no telescoping benefit is availed on these cash receipts elsewhere, the appellant will be allowed the benefit of telescoping against the addition of Rs. 32,588/-. The ground No. 3 raised by the appellant is disposed in the manner as udicated by us in assessment 15, therefore following our finding, the ground No. 7 of as ground No. four of the appeal of the revenue is concerned, we find that Ld. CIT(A) in ash received as on money for benefit/setoff for investment in the said plot. In our opinion, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is justified. The evenue is accordingly The ground no. 8 of the appeal of the assessee pertains to by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in purchase of the plot at Simmer, Nashik , . The director of the assessee company in his statement admitted that amount of ₹1,39,00,000/- money paid for purchase of the . During the course of the assessment proceeding, the authorised representative of the assessee submitted that said payment was made on behalf of the assessee company, but due to some legal dispute the deal did not materialize and the said amount was returned back. The authorised percentage submitted that returned back of the s also reflected in the seized of payment at first stage, the Assessing Officer held the investment as unexplained expenditure. Before the Ld. CIT(A) made an additional argument that expend covered by the declaration made by the assessee under IDS and PMGKY-2016. The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the arguments of the assessee and sustain “67. I have considered the facts of the case and th made by the appellant. The appellant has not disputed of making the payment of Rs. 1,39,00,000/ consideration. It is also not under dispute that the said investment in the plot situated at Sinner, Nashik was made The first argument of the appellant is that the said deal was later cancelled and the cash amount paid during the vear was received back during F.Y. 2016 made during the year under consideration. T appellant is not valid because at the time of making payment, the appellant is required to explain the sources of such funds which were used to make the cash payment which has not been done bv the appellant. Thus, as far as A.Y. 2015 appellant admittedly made a cash investment of Rs. 1,39,00,000/ for purchase of plot for which no source has been explained. In such situation, whether the deal is cancelled in any subsequent assessment year, is immaterial because the investment made during the year has to be taxed at the time of making investment. Accordingly, the argument of the appellant that the cash was later received back from the seller in F.Y. 2016 does not have any force and is, therefore reject 68. The second argument of the appellant is that it had declared an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ PMGKY and the Assessing Officer has erred in not granting any ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. assessee submitted that said payment was made on behalf of the assessee company, but due to some legal dispute the deal did not and the said amount was returned back. The authorised percentage submitted that returned back of the said amount was seized documents. But in absence of any source of payment at first stage, the Assessing Officer held the investment as unexplained expenditure. Before the Ld. CIT(A) made an additional argument that expenditure in dispute was covered by the declaration made by the assessee under IDS 2016. The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the arguments of the assessee and sustained the addition observing as under: 67. I have considered the facts of the case and th made by the appellant. The appellant has not disputed of making the payment of Rs. 1,39,00,000/- in cash during the year under consideration. It is also not under dispute that the said investment in the plot situated at Sinner, Nashik was made by the appellant. The first argument of the appellant is that the said deal was later cancelled and the cash amount paid during the vear was received back during F.Y. 2016-17 and therefore, no addition should be made during the year under consideration. This contention of the appellant is not valid because at the time of making payment, the appellant is required to explain the sources of such funds which were used to make the cash payment which has not been done bv the appellant. Thus, as far as A.Y. 2015-16 is concerned, the appellant admittedly made a cash investment of Rs. 1,39,00,000/ for purchase of plot for which no source has been explained. In such situation, whether the deal is cancelled in any subsequent assessment year, is immaterial because the investment made during the year has to be taxed at the time of making investment. Accordingly, the argument of the appellant that the cash was later received back from the seller in F.Y. 2016 does not have any force and is, therefore rejected. 68. The second argument of the appellant is that it had declared an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in IDS-2016 and Rs. 7,00,00,000/ PMGKY and the Assessing Officer has erred in not granting any M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 31 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. assessee submitted that said payment was made on behalf of the assessee company, but due to some legal dispute the deal did not and the said amount was returned back. The authorised aid amount was . But in absence of any source of payment at first stage, the Assessing Officer held the investment as unexplained expenditure. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee in dispute was covered by the declaration made by the assessee under IDS-2016 2016. The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the arguments of the the addition observing as under: 67. I have considered the facts of the case and the submission made by the appellant. The appellant has not disputed of making in cash during the year under consideration. It is also not under dispute that the said investment by the appellant. The first argument of the appellant is that the said deal was later cancelled and the cash amount paid during the vear was received 17 and therefore, no addition should be his contention of the appellant is not valid because at the time of making payment, the appellant is required to explain the sources of such funds which were used to make the cash payment which has not been done bv 16 is concerned, the appellant admittedly made a cash investment of Rs. 1,39,00,000/- for purchase of plot for which no source has been explained. In such situation, whether the deal is cancelled in any subsequent unexplained investment made during the year has to be taxed at the time of making investment. Accordingly, the argument of the appellant that the cash was later received back from the seller in F.Y. 2016-17 68. The second argument of the appellant is that it had declared an 2016 and Rs. 7,00,00,000/- in PMGKY and the Assessing Officer has erred in not granting any benefit of such disclosure against the said addition of R 1,39,00,000/ issue of benefit of setting off of disclosure made in PMGKY has been discussed earlier in this order wherein after discussing the facts of the case it has been held that no benefit of setti disclosure made under PMGKY shall be available for A.Y. and 2015-16. Accordingly, the said contention of the appellant is rejected. As regards to the disclosure made under IDS be mentioned that only Rs. 50.00.000/ disclosed for A.Y. 2015 appellant shall be eligible for benefit of this disclosure against the cash receipts during the year, as discussed separately in ground No. 5 raised by the appellant. 69. Considering the above discussion and facts of the present case, it is held that the appellant has failed to explain the source of Rs. 1,39,00,000/ purchasing plot at Sinner, Nashik. Accordingly, the addition 1,39,00,000/ No. 4 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED. 26.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee has admitted that payment of Rs.1,39,00, on-money for purchase of the plot but the assessee contended that no addition should be made for that payment a cancelled and said payment was returned back. But the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee was required to explain source of the investment at the time of the payment of money paid and it was not relevant for the purpose of the section 69 that same was received back to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also examined the availability of cash declared under IDS PMGKY-2016, but in payment under consideration, the assessee also. In our opinion, there is ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. benefit of such disclosure against the said addition of R 1,39,00,000/-. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the issue of benefit of setting off of disclosure made in PMGKY has been discussed earlier in this order wherein after discussing the facts of the case it has been held that no benefit of setting off against the disclosure made under PMGKY shall be available for A.Y. 16. Accordingly, the said contention of the appellant is As regards to the disclosure made under IDS be mentioned that only Rs. 50.00.000/- amount of income was disclosed for A.Y. 2015-16 as discussed earlier in this order and the appellant shall be eligible for benefit of this disclosure against the cash receipts during the year, as discussed separately in ground No. 5 raised by the appellant. 69. Considering the above discussion and facts of the present case, it is held that the appellant has failed to explain the source of Rs. 1,39,00,000/- which were paid in cash on 01/06/2014 for purchasing plot at Sinner, Nashik. Accordingly, the addition 1,39,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer is upheld. The ground No. 4 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED.” We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee dmitted that payment of Rs.1,39,00,000/- was paid in cash as money for purchase of the plot but the assessee contended that hould be made for that payment as the deal was cancelled and said payment was returned back. But the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee was required to explain source of the investment at the time of the payment of ₹1,39,00,000/ and it was not relevant for the purpose of the section 69 that same was received back to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) the availability of cash declared under IDS but in view of no availability of cash to explain the payment under consideration, , he has rejected this contention of the assessee also. In our opinion, there is no error M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 32 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. benefit of such disclosure against the said addition of Rs. . In this connection, it may be mentioned that the issue of benefit of setting off of disclosure made in PMGKY has been discussed earlier in this order wherein after discussing the facts of ng off against the disclosure made under PMGKY shall be available for A.Y. 2014-15 16. Accordingly, the said contention of the appellant is As regards to the disclosure made under IDS-2016, it may mount of income was 16 as discussed earlier in this order and the appellant shall be eligible for benefit of this disclosure against the cash receipts during the year, as discussed separately in ground 69. Considering the above discussion and facts of the present case, it is held that the appellant has failed to explain the source of Rs. which were paid in cash on 01/06/2014 for purchasing plot at Sinner, Nashik. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. made by the Assessing Officer is upheld. The ground We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee was paid in cash as money for purchase of the plot but the assessee contended that s the deal was cancelled and said payment was returned back. But the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee was required to explain source of the 000/- as cash on and it was not relevant for the purpose of the section 69 that same was received back to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has the availability of cash declared under IDS-2016 and view of no availability of cash to explain the he has rejected this contention of no error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly the same. The ground No. accordingly dismissed. 27. The ground No. in nature, same is dismissed as infructuous 28. Now, we take up, the appeal of the assessee and assessment year 2016 assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the act is invalid and bad in law. 2. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly uphol by the learned A.O. and that too without even appreciating the facts fully and properly. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full benefit/set off of the amount o Disclosure Scheme of 2016. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the proper benefit/set off of the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000/ Mantri Garb Kalyan Yojna Scheme of 2016. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in the on-money received at 50% and upholding the addition to that extend an 6. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.4,30,18,727 / Dhanlaxmi Electricals. 7. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.52,245/ purchase of a plot at Ulhasnagar. 8. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition* made of Rs.30,550/ 28.1 The ground raised by the revenue are reproduced as under ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly the same. The ground No. 8(eight) of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. No. 9 of the appeal of the assessee being general s dismissed as infructuous. we take up, the appeal of the assessee and assessment year 2016-17. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the act is invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without even appreciating the facts fully and properly. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full benefit/set off of the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ - disclosed under the Income Disclosure Scheme of 2016. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the proper benefit/set off of the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000/-disclosed under th Mantri Garb Kalyan Yojna Scheme of 2016. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in money received at 50% and upholding the addition to that extend and that too without assigning any proper reason. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.4,30,18,727 / - as undisclosed commission received from Dhanlaxmi Electricals. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.52,245/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the act in purchase of a plot at Ulhasnagar. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition* made of Rs.30,550/- as unrecorded receipts received by Directors. ground raised by the revenue are reproduced as under M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 33 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, we uphold of the appeal of the assessee is of the appeal of the assessee being general we take up, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue for of the appeal of the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the act is 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ding the additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without even appreciating the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full benefit/set off of the disclosed under the Income On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the proper benefit/set off of disclosed under the Pradhan On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in money received at 50% and upholding the addition to that d that too without assigning any proper reason. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of as undisclosed commission received from On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the act in of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition* made of as unrecorded receipts received by Directors. ground raised by the revenue are reproduced as under 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case an the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating 50% of 'on money received by the assessee as undisclosed income without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish reliable, cogent & corroborative documentary evidences to prove and subst cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the commercial project. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A's estimation of 50% of 'on money' received as undisclosed income of the assessee is ad unwarranted, baseless, unreasonable and unjustified as the assessee has not been able to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the project. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) faile company in the statement recorded us 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 admitted cash receipts as 'on project not accounted for in its regular books of accounts and offered the same for taxation expenses relating to the project. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing telescoping benefit regarding the investment of Rs. 52,245/ against "On assessee has failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to establish that the said investment has been made from 'on money' receipts. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing set Rs.4,02,63,000/ undisclosed commission income received in cash without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to PMGKY Scheme was from undisclosed commission income received in cash. 29. The ground Nos assessee are identical to ground raised by the assessee assessment year 2015 grounds are adjudicated mutatis mutandis. 30. The ground No. receipt of commission amounting to some contract work of electrical given to M/s Dhanlaxmi electrical ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case an the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating 50% of 'on money received by the assessee as undisclosed income without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish reliable, cogent & corroborative documentary evidences to prove and subst cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the commercial On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A's estimation of 50% of 'on money' received as undisclosed income of the assessee is ad-hoc, arbitrary unwarranted, baseless, unreasonable and unjustified as the assessee has not been able to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Director of the company in the statement recorded us 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 admitted cash receipts as 'on-money' from sale of project not accounted for in its regular books of accounts and offered the same for taxation without making any claim of cash expenses relating to the project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing telescoping benefit regarding the investment of Rs. 52,245/- in Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar inst "On-money' without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to establish that the said investment has been made from 'on money' receipts. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, he Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing set-off of declaration of Rs.4,02,63,000/- made under PMGKY Scheme against undisclosed commission income received in cash without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to prove that said declaration under PMGKY Scheme was from undisclosed commission income received in cash. s. 1 to 5 and Ground No. 7 of the appeal of the assessee are identical to ground raised by the assessee assessment year 2015-16 and therefore following our finding these grounds are adjudicated mutatis mutandis. The ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee relates to receipt of commission amounting to ₹4,30,18,727/ some contract work of electrical given to M/s Dhanlaxmi electrical M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 34 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating 50% of 'on money received by the assessee as undisclosed income without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish reliable, cogent & corroborative documentary evidences to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the commercial On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A's estimation of 50% of 'on money' received as hoc, arbitrary, unwarranted, baseless, unreasonable and unjustified as the assessee has not been able to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, d to appreciate that the Director of the company in the statement recorded us 132(4) of the Income Tax money' from sale of project not accounted for in its regular books of accounts and without making any claim of cash On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing telescoping benefit regarding in Netaji Plot, Ulhasnagar money' without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to establish that the said investment has been made from 'on On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, off of declaration of made under PMGKY Scheme against undisclosed commission income received in cash without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit cogent prove that said declaration under PMGKY Scheme was from undisclosed commission income . 1 to 5 and Ground No. 7 of the appeal of the assessee are identical to ground raised by the assessee for 16 and therefore following our finding these of the appeal of the assessee relates to 727/-in cash from some contract work of electrical given to M/s Dhanlaxmi electrical as reflected in the documents seized during the course of the search action. In the course of the search action, the director of the assessee company ‘Sh commission amounting to that said income was declared under PMGKY scheme. 30.1 As no income was declared in the return of income f section 153A of the A Assessing Officer made addition in the assessment order passed. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that addition of the gross commission by the Assessing Officer is not jus element in said receipt should only be taxed on The Ld. CIT(A) however rejected the contention of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Ld. “78. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. The appellant has clai commission receipts should not be taxed on gross basis and only the income element embedded in such receipts should be taxed. A perusal of the said ledger account suggests that the total credit entries appearing for the year are Rs the Assessing Officer was for this amount only. However, during the assessment proceedings, the appellant explained that out of this amount, there were certain amounts which were journal entries, reversal and certain interest entries which were never received. It was the claim of the appellant before the Assessing Officer that the net income earned as commission from Dhanlaxmi Electricals was Rs. 4,30,18,727/ verification, the said submissi 79.1 Before me, the appellant has now claimed that the said commission income should not be taxed on gross basis. However, the appellant has failed to explain as to what kind of expenses were incurred by it in earning such commission income. Nor the appellant has pointed out any seized document containing details of expenses incurred by it for earning this commission income. It may also be stated that the nature of commission income is such that not much expenditure incurred for earning this type of income. The appellant is trying to take ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. s reflected in the documents seized during the course of the search action. In the course of the search action, the director of the Sh Udhavdas Rupchandani’ admitted receipt of commission amounting to ₹4,30,18,727/-in cash and also stated that said income was declared under PMGKY scheme. As no income was declared in the return of income f section 153A of the Act for the said commission inc Assessing Officer made addition in the assessment order passed. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that addition of the gross commission by the Assessing Officer is not jus receipt should only be taxed on percentage basis. The Ld. CIT(A) however rejected the contention of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 78. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. The appellant has claimed that the unaccounted commission receipts should not be taxed on gross basis and only the income element embedded in such receipts should be taxed. A perusal of the said ledger account suggests that the total credit entries appearing for the year are Rs. 4.83.60.629/- and the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer was for this amount only. However, during the assessment proceedings, the appellant explained that out of this amount, there were certain amounts which were journal entries, reversal and certain interest entries which were never received. It was the claim of the appellant before the Assessing Officer that the net income earned as commission from Dhanlaxmi Electricals was Rs. 4,30,18,727/ verification, the said submission was accepted by the Assessing Officer. 79.1 Before me, the appellant has now claimed that the said commission income should not be taxed on gross basis. However, the appellant has failed to explain as to what kind of expenses were incurred by it in ing such commission income. Nor the appellant has pointed out any seized document containing details of expenses incurred by it for earning this commission income. It may also be stated that the nature of commission income is such that not much expenditure is required to be incurred for earning this type of income. The appellant is trying to take M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 35 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. s reflected in the documents seized during the course of the search action. In the course of the search action, the director of the admitted receipt of in cash and also stated that said income was declared under PMGKY scheme. As no income was declared in the return of income filed under for the said commission income, the Assessing Officer made addition in the assessment order passed. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that addition of the gross commission by the Assessing Officer is not justified and profit percentage basis. The Ld. CIT(A) however rejected the contention of the assessee. The CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 78. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made med that the unaccounted commission receipts should not be taxed on gross basis and only the income element embedded in such receipts should be taxed. A perusal of the said ledger account suggests that the total credit entries appearing and the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer was for this amount only. However, during the assessment proceedings, the appellant explained that out of this amount, there were certain amounts which were journal entries, reversal entries and certain interest entries which were never received. It was the claim of the appellant before the Assessing Officer that the net income earned as commission from Dhanlaxmi Electricals was Rs. 4,30,18,727/-. After on was accepted by the Assessing Officer. 79.1 Before me, the appellant has now claimed that the said commission income should not be taxed on gross basis. However, the appellant has failed to explain as to what kind of expenses were incurred by it in ing such commission income. Nor the appellant has pointed out any seized document containing details of expenses incurred by it for earning this commission income. It may also be stated that the nature of is required to be incurred for earning this type of income. The appellant is trying to take shelter of judicial decisions without bringing out as to how these decisions are applicable to the facts of the present case. 79.2 It may also be mentioned that t present case cannot be equated with the 'on project namely 'Eagle Pride', firstly because the nature of receipts is entirely different and; secondly, because in the case of cash receipts from the Eagle Prideproject, documents containing details of cash expenses incurred by the appellant for development of the said project were seized. However, no such document has been brought to my notice with regard to the expenditure incurred for earning commission r of any details of expenditure incurred by the appellant or any evidence found recorded in the seized documents regarding the expenditure incurred by the appellant for earning such commission income, it cannot be presumed that the app commission income. 79.3 It is also important to mention that vide letter dated gth May, 2022 filed before me, the appellant itself has worked out the 'net undisclosed income on various additions made by the asse under appeal. Contents of this letter have been reproduced earlier in this order and in this letter, the appellant itself has worked out net income on this transaction at Rs. 4,30, 18,7271 79.4 Considering the totality of fact the addition of Rs. 4,30,18,7271 upheld. The ground No. 2 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED 30.2 But the ld CIT(A) has allowed benefit for the declaration under PMGKY scheme, as poi 30.3 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. Before us also no documentary evidence to support that any expenses were incurred in cash for earning the said commission income and therefore the assessee cannot be allowed claim of expenditure incurred on the basis of the decision cited by the assessee only and onus is on the assessee to demonstrate whether any expenditure was incurred in cash for earning such commission income. In absence of doing so, we do not find any error in the finding of the ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. shelter of judicial decisions without bringing out as to how these decisions are applicable to the facts of the present case. 79.2 It may also be mentioned that the commission receipts in the present case cannot be equated with the 'on-money' receipts from the project namely 'Eagle Pride', firstly because the nature of receipts is entirely different and; secondly, because in the case of cash receipts from Prideproject, documents containing details of cash expenses incurred by the appellant for development of the said project were seized. However, no such document has been brought to my notice with regard to the expenditure incurred for earning commission receipts.In the absence of any details of expenditure incurred by the appellant or any evidence found recorded in the seized documents regarding the expenditure incurred by the appellant for earning such commission income, it cannot be presumed that the appellant incurred expenditure for earning this commission income. 79.3 It is also important to mention that vide letter dated gth May, 2022 filed before me, the appellant itself has worked out the 'net undisclosed income on various additions made by the assessing officer for the years under appeal. Contents of this letter have been reproduced earlier in this order and in this letter, the appellant itself has worked out net income on this transaction at Rs. 4,30, 18,7271-. 79.4 Considering the totality of facts of the case and above discussion, the addition of Rs. 4,30,18,7271- made by the assessing officer is upheld. The ground No. 2 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED the ld CIT(A) has allowed benefit for the declaration under PMGKY scheme, as pointed out in para 37 of the impugned order. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. Before us also no documentary evidence to support that any expenses were incurred in cash for earning the said commission income and e the assessee cannot be allowed claim of expenditure incurred on the basis of the decision cited by the assessee only and onus is on the assessee to demonstrate whether any expenditure was incurred in cash for earning such commission income. In doing so, we do not find any error in the finding of the M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 36 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. shelter of judicial decisions without bringing out as to how these he commission receipts in the money' receipts from the project namely 'Eagle Pride', firstly because the nature of receipts is entirely different and; secondly, because in the case of cash receipts from Prideproject, documents containing details of cash expenses incurred by the appellant for development of the said project were seized. However, no such document has been brought to my notice with regard to eceipts.In the absence of any details of expenditure incurred by the appellant or any evidence found recorded in the seized documents regarding the expenditure incurred by the appellant for earning such commission income, it cannot ellant incurred expenditure for earning this 79.3 It is also important to mention that vide letter dated gth May, 2022 filed before me, the appellant itself has worked out the 'net undisclosed ssing officer for the years under appeal. Contents of this letter have been reproduced earlier in this order and in this letter, the appellant itself has worked out net income on s of the case and above discussion, made by the assessing officer is upheld. The ground No. 2 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED.” the ld CIT(A) has allowed benefit for the declaration under 37 of the impugned order. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. Before us also no documentary evidence to support that any expenses were incurred in cash for earning the said commission income and e the assessee cannot be allowed claim of expenditure incurred on the basis of the decision cited by the assessee only and onus is on the assessee to demonstrate whether any expenditure was incurred in cash for earning such commission income. In doing so, we do not find any error in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that entire commission income is liable to be treated as undisclosed income. However the Ld. CIT(A) has already allowed part amount of Rs.4, under PMGKY available order of the Ld. CIT(A). We do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly same. The ground No. adjudicated as above. 31. The ground No. of ₹30,550/-as unrecorded receipt received by the directors. The finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: “81. The ground No. 4 raised by Rs. 30,550/- on account on unrecorded receipts on the basis of seized documents. During the appellate proceedings, vide letter dated 20/06/2022, the appellant has submitted that the amount involved in this ground is insignificant and hence this ground is not being pressed. Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED as not pressed.” 31.1 In view of a finding of the Ld. CIT(A) appeal is dismissed as infructuous. 32. The ground no. dismissed as infructuous. 33. The ground Nos. 1 to 6 of the appeal of the assessment year 2016 assessment 2015-16, and therefore same mutandis. ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. Ld. CIT(A) that entire commission income is liable to be treated as undisclosed income. However the Ld. CIT(A) has already allowed Rs.4,02,63,000/- as set off against er PMGKY available as discussed in para 37 of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). We do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, we same. The ground No. 6(six) of the appeal of the assessee adjudicated as above. The ground No. 8 of the appeal of assessee relates as unrecorded receipt received by the directors. The finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: 81. The ground No. 4 raised by the appellant is regarding the addition of on account on unrecorded receipts on the basis of seized documents. During the appellate proceedings, vide letter dated 20/06/2022, the appellant has submitted that the amount involved in is insignificant and hence this ground is not being pressed. Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED as not In view of a finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the ground No. appeal is dismissed as infructuous. 9 of the appeal being general in nature same is dismissed as infructuous. The ground Nos. 1 to 6 of the appeal of the assessment year 2016-17 are identical to grounds raised in 16, and therefore same are decided M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 37 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. Ld. CIT(A) that entire commission income is liable to be treated as undisclosed income. However the Ld. CIT(A) has already allowed against declaration as discussed in para 37 of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). We do not find any error in the order of the , we uphold the of the appeal of the assessee is relates to addition as unrecorded receipt received by the directors. The finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: the appellant is regarding the addition of on account on unrecorded receipts on the basis of seized documents. During the appellate proceedings, vide letter dated 20/06/2022, the appellant has submitted that the amount involved in is insignificant and hence this ground is not being pressed. Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED as not the ground No. 8 of the 9 of the appeal being general in nature same is The ground Nos. 1 to 6 of the appeal of the Revenue for 17 are identical to grounds raised in decided as mutatis 34. Now we take up, the appeal assessment year 2017 reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the act is invalid and bad in law. 2. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly uphol additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without even appreciating the facts fully and properly. 3. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full benefit/set off of the amoun under the Income Disclosure Scheme of 2016. 4. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the proper benefit / set off of the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000/ under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna Scheme of 2016. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in the on upholding the addition to that e assigning any proper reason. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.31,84,805/ of the Act in purchase of a plo 34.1 The grounds raised by the R 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating 50% of on money' received by the assessee that he himself vide para 36 (page no. 28) of appellate order has held that no cash expenditure was incurred by the assessee during the relevant previous year on the commercial project. 2. On the facts and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish reliable, cogent & corroborative documentary evidences to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been i 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A's estimation of 50% of 'on money' received as undisclosed income of the assessee is ad unwarranted, baseless, unreasonable and un ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. Now we take up, the appeals of the assessee and r 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the act is invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without even appreciating the facts fully and properly. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full benefit/set off of the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-disclosed under the Income Disclosure Scheme of 2016. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the proper benefit / set off of the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000/- disclosed nder the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna Scheme of On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in the on-money received at 50% and upholding the addition to that extend and that too without assigning any proper reason. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.31,84,805/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act in purchase of a plot at Ulhasnagar. grounds raised by the Revenue reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating 50% of on money' received by the assessee as undisclosed income without appreciating the fact that he himself vide para 36 (page no. 28) of appellate order has held that no cash expenditure was incurred by the assessee during the relevant previous year on the commercial project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish reliable, cogent & corroborative documentary evidences to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the commercial project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A's estimation of 50% of 'on money' received as undisclosed income of the assessee is ad-hoc, arbitrary, unwarranted, baseless, unreasonable and unjustified as the M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 38 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. and revenue for 18. The grounds raised by the assessee are On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in ding the additions made by the learned A.O. and that too without 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full disclosed 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the proper disclosed nder the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna Scheme of On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit money received at 50% and xtend and that too without On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition investment u/s 69 evenue reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating 50% of on money' received by as undisclosed income without appreciating the fact that he himself vide para 36 (page no. 28) of appellate order has held that no cash expenditure was incurred by the assessee during the relevant previous year on the commercial project. in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish reliable, cogent & corroborative documentary evidences to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A's estimation of 50% of 'on money' received as hoc, arbitrary, justified as the assessee has not been able to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the project. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Director of the com the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 admitted cash receipts as 'on money' from sale of project not accounted for in its regular books of accounts and offered the same for taxation without making any claim of cash expenses relating to the project. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing set PMGKY Scheme to the extent of Rs.2,97,37,000/ undisclosed income in the form of 'on money' without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to prove that said declaration under PMGKY receipts. 35. Since the issue in dispute in th assessee and the R assessment years 2015 , therefore following our finding in assessment 2016-17, the grounds raised by the appeals for assessment mutandis. 36. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment 2018-19. The grounds raised by the assessee reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstan assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the act is invalid and bad in law. 2. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made by the learned A.0. an facts fully and properly 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in the on-money received at 50% and upholding the addition to extend and that tog without assigning any proper reason. ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. assessee has not been able to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Director of the com the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 admitted cash receipts as 'on money' from sale of project not accounted for in its regular books of accounts and offered the same for taxation without making any claim of cash expenses elating to the project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing set-off of declaration made under PMGKY Scheme to the extent of Rs.2,97,37,000/ undisclosed income in the form of 'on money' received in cash without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to prove that said declaration under PMGKY- scheme was from undisclosed income out of 'on money' receipts. the issue in dispute in the grounds raised by the and the Revenue are identical to grounds raised in 2015-16 and 2016-17 in their respective appeals, therefore following our finding in assessment years 17, the grounds raised by the assessee and appeals for assessment year 2017-18 are decided mutatis Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment 19. The grounds raised by the assessee reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the act is invalid and bad 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made by the learned A.0. and that too without even appreciating the facts fully and properly On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in money received at 50% and upholding the addition to extend and that tog without assigning any proper reason. M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 39 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. assessee has not been able to prove and substantiate cash expenses claimed to have been incurred for the project. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Director of the company in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 admitted cash receipts as 'on money' from sale of project not accounted for in its regular books of accounts and offered the same for taxation without making any claim of cash expenses On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the off of declaration made under PMGKY Scheme to the extent of Rs.2,97,37,000/- against received in cash without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit cogent and reliable evidences to prove that said declaration under scheme was from undisclosed income out of 'on money' e grounds raised by the evenue are identical to grounds raised in 17 in their respective appeals, years 2015-16 and assessee and Revenue in 18 are decided mutatis Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 19. The grounds raised by the assessee reproduced as under: ces of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the act is invalid and bad 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in partly upholding the additions made d that too without even appreciating the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in money received at 50% and upholding the addition to that extend and that tog without assigning any proper reason. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made of Rs.21,56,800/ 36.1 We find that issue in dispute raised in the grounds by the assessee are covered by our finding years from AY 2014-15 to 2018-19 are decided mutatis mutandis. 29. In the result, appeals of assess appeals of Revenue are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 28/08/2023 Dragon Legal/Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made of Rs.21,56,800/- as not incurred for business purposes. hat issue in dispute raised in the grounds by the assessee are covered by our finding in appeal for the assessment 15 to AY 2017-18, and therefore are decided mutatis mutandis. In the result, appeals of assessee are dismissed, are partly allowed. nounced in the open Court on 28/08/2023. Sd/- Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. 40 ITA Nos. 2212 to 2214 and 2397 to 2401/M/2022. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made of as not incurred for business purposes. hat issue in dispute raised in the grounds by the in appeal for the assessment 18, and therefore grounds for AY dismissed, whereas /08/2023. Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai