DCIT, CC-1, , JAIPUR V. SHRI JUGAL KISHORE GARG(DEREWALA), JAIPUR

ITA 34/JPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6749 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMBRISH BEDI
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR DHK
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 250; 207; 139(1); 43; 13; 22; 153C; 131; 68; 69

Judgement Text

1 VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,A JAIPUR JH JESK LH-'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,O LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOS AIN, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 34, 35, 36 & 37/JP/2020 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 TO 2017-18 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 JAIPUR CUKE VS. SHRI JUGAL KISHORE GARG (DEREWALA) 27-A, AGRASEN COLONY, BRAHMPURI ROAD, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABBPG 4020 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SHRI AMBRISH BEDI, CIT- DR FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR, ADVOCATE LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28/08/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14 /09/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. THESE FOUR APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF LD.CIT (A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 07.10 .2019 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153C FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 TO 2016-17 AND 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). DUE TO PREVAILING COVI D-19 PANDEMIC CONDITION, THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS ARE CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE. ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 2 THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NO. 34/JP/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS (INDEPENDENTLY & SEVERALLY) IN GRANTING RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND ON CLOUD DATA AND DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.70,94,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOU NT OF ON MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL AND ADVANCES WERE FOUND IN THE N TRADING ON CLOUD D ATA AND THUS ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL, A DVANCES, INTEREST AND SURPLUS PROFIT EARNED WERE ON THE BASI S OF INCRIMINATING SEIZED DATA. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT MANGLAM G ROUP HAD OWNED UP THE ENTIRE IN THE N TRADING ON CLOUD D ATA BEFORE THE ISTC. THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ISTC HAS ALREADY BEEN CHALLENGED IN WRIT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT. ITA NO. 35/JP/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS (INDEPENDENTLY & SEVERALLY) IN GRANTING RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND ON CLOUD DATA AND DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 2,82,97,500/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACC OUNT OF ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 3 UNACCOUNTED SURPLUS PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM VARIOUS PROJECTS OF MANGLAM GROUP. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND ON CLOUD DATA AND DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACC OUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST EARNED ON CASH LOAN/CAPITAL. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL AND ADVANCES WERE FOUND IN THE N TRADING ON CLOUD D ATA AND THUS ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL, A DVANCES, INTEREST AND SURPLUS PROFIT EARNED WERE ON THE BASI S OF INCRIMINATING SEIZED DATA. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT MANGLAM G ROUP HAD OWNED UP THE ENTIRE IN THE N TRADING ON CLOUD D ATA BEFORE THE ISTC. THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ISTC HAS ALREADY BEEN CHALLENGED IN WRIT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT. ITA NO. 36/JP/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS (INDEPENDENTLY & SEVERALLY) IN GRANTING RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND ON CLOUD DATA AND DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACC OUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL DEPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND ON CLOUD DATA AND DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 25,89,900/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOU NT OF ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 4 UNACCOUNTED SURPLUS PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS PROJECT OF MANGLAM GROUP. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND ON CLOUD DATA AND DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 14,24,800/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOU NT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST EARNED ON CASH LOAN/CAPITAL. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL AND ADVANCES WERE FOUND IN THE N TRADING ON CLOUD D ATA AND THUS ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL, A DVANCES, INTEREST AND SURPLUS PROFIT EARNED WERE ON THE BASI S OF INCRIMINATING SEIZED DATA. 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT MANGLAM G ROUP HAD OWNED UP THE ENTIRE IN THE N TRADING ON CLOUD D ATA BEFORE THE ISTC. THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ISTC HAS ALREADY BEEN CHALLENGED IN WRIT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT. ITA NO. 37/JP/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS (INDEPENDENTLY & SEVERALLY) IN GRANTING RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND ON CLOUD DATA AND DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.70,94,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOU NT OF ON MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL AND ADVANCES WERE FOUND IN THE N TRADING ON CLOUD D ATA AND ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 5 THUS ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL, A DVANCES, INTEREST AND SURPLUS PROFIT EARNED WERE ON THE BASI S OF INCRIMINATING SEIZED DATA. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT MANGLAM G ROUP HAD OWNED UP THE ENTIRE IN THE N TRADING ON CLOUD D ATA BEFORE THE ISTC. THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ISTC HAS ALREADY BEEN CHALLENGED IN WRIT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT. 2.1 FIRST OF ALL, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 FOR ADJUDICATION. 3.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PARTNER IN THE FIRMS M/S. J.K. JEWELLERS (3.3.34% SHARES), M/S. JK JEWEL LERS INTERNATIONAL (20% SHARES), M/S. JK JEWELLS (50% SHARES), M/S. UP ASAND COLONIZERS (50% SHARES) , M/S. JK INTERNATIONAL (33.33% SHARES ), M/S. NEEMRANA DEVELOPERS (40% SHARES) AND M/S. PRECIOUS BUILDCON (50% SHARES) RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAIN AND INTEREST FROM PARTIES DURING THIS YEAR. THE ORIGINAL RETURNS WERE FILED AS PER DETAILS AS UNDER:- A.Y. DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT RETURNED INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT (RS.) 2014-15 31-01-2015 6,25,35,780/- 2015-16 29-12-2015 4,95,65,260/- 2017-18 17-10-2016 26,66,73,420/- ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 6 A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT W AS CARRIED OUT ON 4-11- 2016 AT THE VARIOUS PREMISES OF MANGLAM GROUP, JAI PUR. PURSUANT TO THIS, THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT FOR ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2014-15 TO 2016-17 RESPECTIVELY TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN COMP LIANCE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AS UNDER:- A.Y. DATE OF FILING OF RETURN RETURNED INCOME U/S 153C OF THE ACT 2014-15 10-10-2018 6,25,35,780/- 2015-16 11-10-2018 4,95,65,260/- 2017-18 11-10-2018 26,66,73,420/- THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-10-20 17 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 3,32,32, 940/-. THEREAFTER THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY FOR ALL THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR S I.E. 2014-15 TO 2017- 18 THEREBY MAKING ADDITIONS IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS . 3.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) W HO AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES PARTLY ALLOWED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7.4 THUS ON MERITS TOO, SINCE THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDED BY THE LD. AO HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUB JECTED ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 7 TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF MBDL AND RELATED ENTITIES. THE LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE VARIOUS A.YR. IN SHORT THE RELIEF IS GRANTED TO THE APPELLA NT ON THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS. GROUND OF APPEAL A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y.2017-18 UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL EMPLOYED 10,34,68,000 1,50,00,000 SURPLUS PROFIT 2,46,25,600 2,82,97,500 25,89,900 INTEREST EARNED ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED 85,00,000 1,00,00,000 14,224,800 ON MONEY RECEIVED 70,94,000 3.3 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENU E PREFERRED RESPECTIVE APPEALS BEFORE US FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2014-15 TO 2017-18. 3.4 NOW WE TAKE UP THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AS MENTIONED ABOVE TO ADJUD ICATE. 3.5 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE INTERRELA TED AND INTERCONNECTED AND RELATE TO CHALLENGING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 3.6 THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY RECEIVED ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 8 BY THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND ON CLOUD DATA AND ALSO IGNORED THE FACTS THAT ENTRIES RELATING TO UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL AND ADVANCES WERE FOUND IN THE N TRADING COMPANY CLOUD DATA AND THUS THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED, UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL ADVANCE, INTEREST AND SURPLUS P ROFIT EARNED WERE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING SEIZED DATA. THE LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT MANGLAM GROUP HAD OWNED UP THE ENTIRE IN THE N TRADING ON CLOUD DATA BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITSC PARTICULARLY WHE N THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITSC HAS ALREADY BEEN CHALLENGED IN WRIT BE FORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 3.7 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR REITERATED THE SA ME ARGUMENTS AS WERE RAISED BY HIM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO R ELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3.8 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE PARTI ES, WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD, DELIBERATED UPON THE JUDGEMENT CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PAS SED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN DIFFERENT FIRMS AND DETAIL S OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS APPE AL. THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 9 DECLARED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GA INS AND INTEREST FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION AND ORIGINAL RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WAS FILED U/ S 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 31-01-2015 AT RS. 6,25,35,780/-. A SEARCH AND SEIZU RE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 4-11-2016 AT THE VARIOUS PREMISES OF M/S. MANGALAM GROUP, JAIPUR AND PURSUANT TO THIS THE AO ISSUED NO TICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 TO 2016-17 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HI S RETURN OF INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN TABULATED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPH OF THIS APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30- 10-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT R S. 3,32,32,940/-. THEREAFTER, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 153C OF THE ACT FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2014-15 TO 2017-18 AS PER THE FOLLOWING TOTAL INCOME TABULATED AS UNDER:- AY DATED ASSESSED INCOME (RS.) ADDITION MADE BY THE AO 2014-15 28.12.2018 20,21,48,150/- (I) ADDITION OF RS. 10,34,68,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE APPELLANT IN VARIOUS PROJECTS OF MANGLAM GROUP ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA. (II) ADDITION OF RS. 2,46,25,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF SURPLUS SHARE PROFIT IN PROJECTS OF MANGLAM GROUP ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA. (III) ADDITION OF RS. 85,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA. ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 10 2015-16 28.12.2018 8,78,62,760/- (I) ADDITION OF RS. 2,82,97,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF SURPLUS SHARE PROFIT IN PROJECTS OF MANGLAM GROUP ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA. (II) ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SURPLUS INTEREST FROM MANGLAM GROUP ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA. 2016-17 28.12.2018 28,56,88,120/- (I) ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL IN CASH EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS PROJECTS OF MANGLAM GROUP ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA. (II) ADDITION OF RS. 25,89,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF SURPLUS SHARE PROFIT IN PROJECTS RECEIVED IN CASH FROM MANGLAM GROUP ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA. (III) ADDITION OF RS. 14,24,800/-ON ACCOUNT OF SURPLUS INTEREST FROM MANGLAM GROUP ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA. 2017-18 28.12.2018 4,04,51,940/- ADDITION OF RS. 70,94,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON- MONEY RECEIVED AGAINST BOOKING OF FLATS ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA OF THE PERSON WHO OWNED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE ONLY HIS TRANSACTIONS AND PAID TAX AND OFFERED THE TRANSACTIONS IN SETTLEMENT. 3.9 BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE ALSO GONE THOUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS CONTAINED IN PARA 4 AND 4.2 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREBELOW. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SEPAR ATE IDENTICAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR FOUR AYS WERE MADE AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE MAIN PORTION OF ONE OF THE SUBMISSI ONS FOR AY 2014-15 IS REPRODUCED HEREIN AS UNDER GROUND NO. 1 - ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 11 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3)/153C OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS VOID AB-INITIO AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND RELATED TO THE ASSESSE E AND NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/ S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 1. FACTS OF THE CASE: - A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF MANGLAM GROUP ON 09.11.2016. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH VARIOUS FILES, DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS AND BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS WERE SEIZED AND SOME CLOUD DATA WAS ALSO RECOVERED. IN THE CLOUD DATA BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S N. TRADING COMPANY WA S FOUND. IN THE CLOUD DATA OF M/S N. TRADING COMPANY RECOVERED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MANGLAM GROUP, ALL THE TRANSACTIONS F OUND IN THIS CLOUD DATA REGARDING CASH LOAN/TRANSACTIONS WAS OWN ED UP BY SHRI N.K. GUPTA AND STATED THAT NAME MENTIONED IN THE DA TA IS IMAGINARY AND MANGLAM GROUP HAS NOT TAKEN ANY CASH LOAN FROM ANY PERSON OR REPAID TO ANY PERSON AS MENTIONED IN THE CLOUD DATA. THEY ALSO SAID THAT THESE WERE THEIR OWN AFFAIRS AN D TO SHOW IT AS TO OTHER PARTNERS THEY HAVE MADE ENTRIES IN FALSE N AME AND FICTITIOUS ENTITIES IN CLOUD DATA. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON 09.11.2016 OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA (DIRECTOR AND KEY-PERSON OF MANGLAM GROUP) IN REPLY TO QUESTI ON NO. 117 PAGE 62 CLEARLY STATED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS OF LOAN RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ARE TRANSACTION OF MBDL AND NOT RELATED TO OTHER PARTIES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE AND THESE ARE THEIR OWN TRAN SACTIONS AS REPRODUCED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 117 TO 119. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA IN THIS REGARD TO THE LEARNED AO THAT NO CASH LOAN/TRANSACT ION WITH SHRI JUGAL KISHORE GARG (DEREWALA) DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 TO 2016-17 WAS UNDERTAKEN BY HIM OR MANGLAM GROUP. THE LEARNED AO HAS REJECTED THIS AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE C ONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT OR WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE PE RSON WHO HAS FURNISHED THIS AFFIDAVIT. THE LEARNED AO DID NOT BR ING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FACTS STATED IN THE AFFIDA VIT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT, 1961 BY MAKI NG SUCH A HUGE ADDITIONS WHICH IS VOID AB-INITIO DESERVES TO BE QU ASHED. THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER ASSAILED THE ACTION OF THE LEAR NED AO IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C AS UNDER: - 2. WRONG AND IRRELEVANT SATISFACTION RECORDED OR NO T RECORDED BY THE LEARNED AO AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SEARC H PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTEMPLATED AND CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF MA NGLAM GROUP. HOWEVER THE INVESTIGATION WING SUSPECTED AND HAD AP PREHENSION THAT THE MANGLAM GROUP WAS HAVING TRANSACTIONS WITH JUGA L KISHORE GARG AND THE SAME RECORDED IN CLOUD DATA. HENCE THE ACTI ON U/S 153C WAS ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 12 TAKEN IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DENI ED THE TRANSACTIONS WITH MANIGAM GROUP APPEARING IN CLOUD DATA. HE HAS NOT MADE ANY CASH TRANSACTION WITH MANGLAM GROUP. T HUS THERE IS NO MATERIAL FOR RECORDING THE SATISFACTION NOTE WIT H THE INVESTIGATION WING AS WELL AS THE LEARNED AO. THE LEARNED AO WAS INCORRECT TO THIS EXTENT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EVEN MATCH THE RECORDED TRANSACTION WITH THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT PART OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE RECOR DED IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE BOOKS OF MANGLAM GROU P AND PART OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF BOTH. THEREAFTER THE SATISFACTION CAN BE RECORDED WHICH IS TOTALLY ABSEN T IN THE CASE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES THE A CTION TAKEN U/S 153C IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WAS TAKEN WRONGLY AND W ITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS. THE SAME WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCU MENT OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL OR STATEMENT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS R ECORDED IN CLOUD DATA RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE MANGLAM GROUP ALS O DID NOT TURN OUT TO BE ACCEPTED AS THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESS EE. THUS TO THIS EXTENT THE ACTION OF THE INVESTIGATION WING AS WELL AS THE LEARNED AO WAS VITIATED AND THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 153C IN THE A SSESSEE'S CASE WAS WITHOUT A PROPER SATISFACTION AMD WAS ILLEGAL A ND UNLAWFUL. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN WAKE OF IN COMPLETE SATISFACTION DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. INSPITE OF REPEATED REQUESTS OF THE ASSESSEE THE LE ARNED AO HAS NOT PROVIDED THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THEREFORE THE WHOLE PRO CEEDINGS ARE VOID AB-INITIO. THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS ARE QUOTED IN SUPPORT (I) 289 LTR 341 (SC) MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. CIT. AO. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA 5 HAS OBSERVED THAT PROPER SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S153C OF I.T. ACT 1961. AO. HAS NOT PROVIDED COPY OF SATISFACTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE ULS 153C IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NO IN CRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF M/S ARTEFACT PROJECTS LTD. OBSERVATION OF AO. THAT NOTI CE HAS BEEN ISSUED PURSUANCE. TO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT M/S. ARTEFACT PROJECTS LTD. IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. CONSEQUENT SATISFACTION AS WELL AS ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF I.T. ACT 1961 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (II) CIT VS. SHETTY PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICAL LT D. 232 TAXMAN (ANDHRA PRADESH H.C.) IN THIS CASE IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 153C AND 153A MANDATES RECORDING OF SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER( S) IS A PRE- CONDITION FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION AND IT IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY BECAUSE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION POSTULATES APPLIC ATION OF MIND ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 13 CONSCIOUSLY AS THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED MUST BE BELONGI NG TO THE ANY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN S ECTION 153-A OF THE ACT. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE SAME ASSESSING OF FICER IS INVOLVED IN THE MATTER. THIS FACT DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH ABO VE REQUIREMENT. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT WHEN A THING IS TO BE DONE IN ONE PARTICULAR MANNER UNDER LAW THIS HAS TO BE DONE IN THAT MANNER ALONE AND NOT OTHER WAY (SEE NAZIR AHMED V. KING EM PEROR). WE THINK THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY FOLLOWED T HE PRINCIPLE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ELEMENT OF LAW TO BE DECIDED. (III) ZAIDUN LEENQ SDN BHD ARTEFACT PROJECTS LTD. ( JV) VS DOT (ITAT NAGPUR) APPEAL NUMBER :I.T.A. NOS. 382 & 383/NAG/20 14 DATED 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2017. ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IF NO PROPER SATISFACTION RECORDED BY AOPCIT VS N.S. SOFT WARE (FIRM) (DELHI HIGH COURT) APPEAL NUMBER : ITA 791/2017 DAT E OF UDGEMENT/ORDER : 18/04/2018 IT IS NOW A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT EVEN IF AO FOR THE PERSON FROM WHOSE PREMISES DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED IS THE SA ME AS THE AO FOR THE PERSON TO WHOM DOCUMENT BELONGED, SEPARATE SATISFACTION NOTES MUST BE RECORDED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO 'S NOTE NOWHERE REFLECTED WHETHER ANY DOCUMENT SEIZED, ON APPLICATION OF HIS MIND, DISCLOSED THAT IT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, AND IF SO, ITS PRIMA FACIE NATURE. THEREF ORE, PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C WERE VOID AB INITIO. (V) INGRAM MICRO (INDIA) EXPORTS PVT. LTD VS. DDIT (ITAT MUMBAI) S. 153C SEARCH ASSESSMENT IS VOID IF AO'S SATISFACT ION NOT RECORDED- A SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. AS CERTAIN DOCUMENTS W ERE FOUND WHICH ALLEGEDLY SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE (A SINGAPORE COM PNAY) WAS NOT PAYING TAX IN INDIA THOUGH IT HAD A PE, AN ASSESSME NT U/S 153C WAS MADE TO BRING SUCH PROFITS TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE CHA LLENGED THE S. 153C ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO WHO HAD C ONDUCTED THE SEARCH HAD NOT RECORDED SATISFACTION THAT ANY INCOM E BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL: U/S 153A & 153C, PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED ONLY AFTER THE AO COMES TO THE SATISFACTION THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL PERTAINS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PARTY AND COMES TO THE CONC LUSION THAT PROCEEDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED IN THE OTH ER PARTY'S CASE. IN MANISH MAHESHWARI 289 LTR 341 (SC), IT WAS HELD IN THE CONTEXT OF S. 158 BD THAT THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THA N THE PERSON SEARCHED, IS A 'CONDITION PRECEDENT' AND THAT A NOT ICE ISSUED WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION AND APPLICATION OF MIND WAS A NULLITY. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPLIED TO S. 153C IN SSP AVIATI ON 207 TAXMAN 260 (DELHI) & P. SATYANARAYANA (ITAT CHENNAI). ON FACTS , AS THE ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 14 DEPARTMENT WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE AO ASSESSING THE SEARCHED PARTY HAD REACHED THE SATISF ACTION THAT ANY INCOME BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT HAD TO BE ANNULLED. (V) OTHER DECISIONS- 1) (2015) 155 ITO 0501 (DELHI) CIT VS. SATKAR ROADL INES PVT. LTD.] II) (2015) 232 TAXMAN 0268 (AP) CIT VS. SHETTYS PHARMAC EUTICALS & BIOLOGICALLTD. III) HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ORDER IN ITA NO. 44/2011 IN THE CASE OF M/S. MECHMEN VIDE ORDER DATED 10107/201 5. IV) (2014) 365 1TR 0411 (ALL) CIT VS. GOPI APARTMENT V) HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.1337 OF 2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S. INGRAM MICRO (INDIA) EXPORTS PTE. LTD. VIDE OR DER DATED 2 9/04/2015 VI) HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA 422/2015 IN THE CAS E OF NIKKI DRUGS& CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 03/12/2 015. VII) ITTA NO.254 OF 2014 JUDGEMENT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIE F JUSTICE SHRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA) VIII) ITAT ORDER IN ITA 4228/DE1/2011 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHIELD HOME PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 24/02/2016 3. ACTION U/S 153C UNWARRANTED IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLE TED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153C. ABSOLUTELY NO MATERIAL I.E. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER ASSET PERTAINING TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2014-15 TO 2017-18 WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT MANGLAM GROUP. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND FOR REOPENING THE AS SESSMENT IT IS NOW SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT RESORT TO PROVISIONS O F SECTION 153C IS NOT MECHANICAL. SUCH ACTION IS WARRANTED WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SHOULD BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND PERTAINING TO A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT IN THAT NO ACTION IS REQUIRED FOR REOPENING THE SAM E EITHER U/S 153A OR U/S 153C. THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS ARE QUOTED IN SUPPORT (I) SINAHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. ACT (20 11) 57 DTR 241 SEARCH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHERE NO ASSESSMENT YEAR SPECIFIC INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL OR DOCUMENT IS FOUND, ASSESSMENT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR CANNOT BE DISTUR BED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C. (II) LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. DCIT (2008) 14 DTR 540 ( KOL TRIB) WHERE NOTHING INCRIMINATING IS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSMENT OF SUCH YEARS CANNO T BE DISTURBED. ITEMS OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE ADDED BACK IN THE PROC EEDING U/S 153C WHEN NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND IN RESPECT OF TH E DISALLOWED AMOUNT IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. (II) ACTT VS. GAMBHIR SILK MILLS (2010) 6 ITR 376 (AHM. TRIB) ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 15 IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT WHEN THE SEARC H WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI SUBHASH GAMBHIR. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY, BULLIO N. JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS S EIZED BELONGED TO THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. NOTHING IS HANDED OVER TO THE AO HAVING J URISDICTION OVER THE PRESENT.ASSESSEE. NO SUCH VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 153C OF THE IT ACT, 1961. SINCE FOR ALL TH ESE YEARS, THE RETURNS WERE ORIGINALLY FILED AND PROCESSED AND SINCE NO ADDITIO NAL MATERIAL IS FOUND PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS HELD TO BE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE THE AO DOES NOT ASSUME JURISDICTION FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 153C R .W.S. 153A OF THE IT ACT, 1961. WE THEREFORE, CANCEL ALL THE ASSESSMENTS MADE FOR A LL THESE YEARS. SINCE WE HAVE CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENTS, WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO DEA L WITH GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEALS AND GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN CROSS-OBJECTIONS ON THE MERITS. GROUND NO. 2, 3 & 4 - 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,34,68,000/ U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS PROJECTS OF MANGLAM GROUP ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA OF THE PERSON WHO OWNED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE ONLY HIS TRANSACTIONS AND PAID TAX AND OFFERED THE TRANSACTIONS IN SETTLEMENT. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,46,25,600/ ON ACCOUNT OF SURPLUS SHARE PROFITS IN PROJECTS OF MANGLAM GROUP ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DAT A OF THE PERSON WHO OWNED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE ONLY HIS TRANSACTIONS AND PA ID TAX AND OFFERED THE TRANSACTIONS IN SETTLEMENT. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 85,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT O F INTEREST EARNED ON THE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA OF THE PERSON WHO OWNED THAT THESE TRANS ACTIONS ARE ONLY HIS TRANSACTIONS AND PAID TAX AND OFFERED THE TRANSACTIONS IN SETTLE MENT. 1. FACTS OF THE CASE: - A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF MANGLAM GROUP ON 09.11.2016. DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH VARIOUS FILES, DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SEIZED AND SO ME CLOUD DATA WAS ALSO RECOVERED. IN THE CLOUD DATA BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M /S N. TRADING COMPANY WAS FOUND. IN THE CLOUD DATA OF M/S N. TRADING COMPANY RECOVERED FROM MANGLAM GROU0070, ALL THE TRANSACTIONS REGARDING CASH LOAN WAS OWNED UP BY SHRI N.K. GUPTA AND STATED THAT NAME MENTIONED IN THE DATA IS IMAGI NARY AND MANGLAM GROUP HAS NOT TAKEN ANY CASH LOAN FROM ANY PERSON OR REPAID T O ANY PERSON AS MENTIONED IN THE CLOUD DATA. THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE STATEMENT GIV EN BY SHRI N.K. GUPTA AND HAS WORKED OUT THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF A LEDGE R ACCOUNT OF N. TRADING COMPANY FOUND IN CLOUD DATA OF MANGLAM GROUP. THE COPY OF LEDGER ACC OUNT IS APPEARING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON PAGE NO. 6 AND 7. THE SAME IS SCANNED AS UNDER: - THESE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 10 AND 11 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 16 THE LEARNED AO HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION AFTER WOR KED OUT THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE TABLE THAT IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT CA PITAL INVESTMENT IN CASH WAS MADE DURING THE F.Y. 2013-14 IS THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS CASH RECEIVED ON 01.04.2013 WHICH IS RS. 10,34,69,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNACCOUNTED, OUT OF BOOKS CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS PROJECTS LIKE THE GAN PATI TOWNSHIP AND SHREE KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION. INTEREST IS CREDITED ON THREE DATES A ND SURPLUS IS ALSO CREDITED IN SOME OF THE PROJECTS WHERE SH. JUGAL KISHORE DEREWA LA IS PARTNER AND HAS DEPLOYED HIS UNACCOUNTED CAPITOL IN CASH. AFTER DECODING OF THE FIGURES, THE TOTAL CASH FUNDS DEPLOYED/CREDITED ORE FOUND TO BE AS UNDER: SR.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1 CAPITAL - CASH ON 01.04.13 103468000 2 INTEREST CREDITED ON VARIOUS DATES 8500000 3 SURPLUS IN VARIOUS PROJECTS 24625600 TOTAL 136593600 AND THE ABOVE ADDITION HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE PERTAINED T O THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED HIS REPLY DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS QUOTED AS UNDER: - 1. 'THAT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE YOU HAVE MENTIONED T HAT ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL YOU ARE ASSOCIATED WITH M/S MBDL. IN THIS REGARD YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF MATERIAL O R DETAIL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH YOU HAVE NOTICED THAT WE ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MBDL. 2. FURTHER YOU HAVE REPRODUCED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IN T HE BOOKS OF N. TRADING COMPANY IN THE NAME OF DJK. IN THIS REGARD WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT WE HAVE NOT MADE ANY TRANSACTIONS WITH N. TRADING COMPANY AND WE ARE NOT DJK. HOW YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT TH E LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DX IS OURS. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PROVIDE US THE BASIS OR MATERIAL OR ANY EVIDENCE BY WHICH YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT DJK IS J UGAL KISHORE GARG BECAUSE WE HAVE NO CONNECTION OR TRANSACTIONS WITH N. TRADING COMPANY. ' 3. THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE LEDGER ACC OUNT OF N. TRADING COMPANY IN THE NAME OF DJK ARE NOT RELEVANT TO US, HENCE WE CANNOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE OPENING BALANCE AS WELL AS TRANSACTIONS DURING THE YEAR. WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA OF MANGLAM GRO UP AS WELL AS COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FACT THAT THE TRA NSACTION RECORDED IN N. TRADING COMPANY ARE NOT RELATED TO US AND SHRI N.K. GUPTA HAS ALSO STATED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT RE LATED TO SHRI JUGAL KISHORE GARG OR JUGAL KISHORE DEREWALA. THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY RELEVANCE OR ANY REASON TO RELATE THESE TRANSACTION S WITH THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT IF THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS GIVEN IN YOUR SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ARE NOT RELEVANT TO ASSESSEE. THE PERSON FROM WHOM POSS ESSION THESE ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 17 DOCUMENTS/MATERIAL/SOFT DATA IN THE FORM OF HARD DI SK AND OTHER ELECTRONIC STORAGE DEVICES WERE FOUND HAS ALSO GIVEN THE STATE MENT AND AFFIDAVIT THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT RELATED TO ASSESSEE AND HE HAS CONSIDERED THESE TRANSACTIONS IN THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE SETTLE MENT COMMISSION. THEREFORE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. ' BUT THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT BASED O N ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. SHRI,N.K. GUPTA HAS ALSO STATED IN HIS ST ATEMENT THAT HE HAS SURRENDERED THIS AMOUNT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHO RITIES AND BEFORE THE ITSC FOR PURCHASE OF PEACE OF MIND AND AVOID FU RTHER LITIGATION. INSPITE OF REPEATED REQUESTS BY THE ASSESSEE THE LE ARNED AO DID NOT PROVIDE THE COPY OF CLOUD DATA, COPY OF STATEMENT O R OTHER MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LEARNED AO HAS IDENTIFIED THAT THE E NTRIES ARE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT HE DID NOT PROVIDE AND ALSO GIVEN ANY CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA FROM WHERE THE ACTUAL TRUTH CAN BE FIND OUT. THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY LEG TO STAND. THE ADDITION IS FURTHER ASSAILED AS UNDER: - 3. ADDITION CANNOT BE WITHOUT GIVING CROSS EXAMINATION OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITIO N ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CROS S EXAMINATION OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALLOWED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS E XAMINATION OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA. THE APEX COURT OF THE COUNTRY HAS ALSO HELD THAT \ALLOWING CROSS EXAMINATION IS A SERIOUS FLAW AND MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY. THE FOLLO WING CASE LAWS ARE QUOTED IN SUPPORT: - N THE APEX COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT NOT ALLOWING CROSS EXAMINATION IS A SERIOUS FLAW AND MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY. ANDMAN TI MBER IND. VS. COMMISSION OF CENTRAL EXCISE (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). 'NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE ST ATEMENTS OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY IN AS MUCH AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED. (II) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BIJU PATNA IK HIGH COURT OF ORISSA 190 ITR0396 ALTHOUGH ANSWERS CAN BE RECORDED EITHER IN FAVOUR O F THE. DEPARTMENT OR AGAINST IT, ULTIMATELY EACH ANSWER WO ULD AGAIN BECOME INCONCLUSIVE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRI BUNAL THAT ITO HAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE E TO REBUT THE STATEMENTS RECORDED EX PARTE UNDER S. 131 OF THE ACT AND TO FURNISH EXPLANATION TO SOME OF THE MATERIALS. IT IS TRUE THAT TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN DUE WEIGHT TO THE RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE WHILE RECORDING THE FINDINGS OF FACT. HOWEVER , THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON SUCH FACT ARE ALSO VULNERABLE AS THEY MAY REQUIRE RECONS IDERATION. IF ANSWERS IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE QUESTIONS ARE INDICATED IN THE ABSEN CE OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BEING AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEY WOULD BE OF AC AD EMIC INTEREST INASMUCH AS THE ANSWERS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WOULD BECOME VULNERABL E ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEED TO UNDO THE ABSENCE OR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. A CLEAR AND CONCLUSIVE FINDING BINDING ON THE PARTIES CAN BE GIVEN ONLY AFTER REASONABLE O PPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 18 ASSESSEE AS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL. NO ANSWER SHOULD BE GIVEN IN ADVISORY JURISDICTION WHICH WOULD NOT FINALLY DECIDE THE ISS UE SINCE FINAL FINDING CAN BE ARRIVED AT ONLY AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND EXPLANATION GIVE N BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE MATERIAL BEARING ON THE FIN DING. IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVES OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE . TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE WHILE RENDERING THE DECISION IN APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE VITIA TED IN LAW. AS THE FINAL FACT- FINDING FORUM, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO CONSIDER THE SAME AGAIN. SINCE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN GI VEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE REBUTTAL EVI DENCE AND EXPLANATION, THIS CAN EFFECTIVELY BE DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REFERENCE APPLICATIONS ARE DISPOSED OF AS ABOVE LEAVING IT TO THE TRIBUNAL TO PASS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS. PRAKASH CHAND NAHTA VS. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (HIG H COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH) (2008) 301 ITR 0134 : (III) ASSESSMENTVALIDITYOPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD VIS- A- VIS STATEMENTS OF THIRD PARTY UNACCOUNTED SILVER ORNAMENTS AND UTENSILS WERE FOUN D AND SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AT THE ASSESSEE'S PREMISESA SSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID SILVER ITEMS WERE PURCHASED FROM ONE R & CO. AO MADE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF M, PROPRIETOR OF R & CO., BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEENOT JUSTIFIEDAO HAS HEAVI LY RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF M AND HAS IGNORED THE SUBSEQUENT AFFIDAVIT FILED BY M WHICH IS IN VARIANCE OF HIS ORIGINAL STATEMENT SINCE THE STATEMENT OF M WAS USED AGAINST THE ASSES SEE AND AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED CONTROVERTING THE SAME, IT WAS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE AO TO ALLOW THE PRAYER OF ASSESSEE FOR CROSS-EX AMINATION OF M AO HAVING NOT SUMMONED M U.S 131 INSPITE OF THE REQUEST OF THE AS SESSEE, EVIDENCE OF M COULD NOT HAVE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE- THEREFORE THE A SSESSMENT ORDER IS VITIATED. (IV) HEIRS AND LRS OF LATE LAXMANBHA1 S. PATEL VS. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT ) (2010) 3271TR 0290 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD DURING SEARCH OF ONE R, KEY OF BANK LOCKER ALONG WI TH TWO PACKETS CONTAINING SIX PROMISSORY NOTES WERE RECOVE REDOUT OF THOSE SIX PROMISSORY NOTES, ONE WAS IN THE SUM OF RS. 8,78,358 EXECUTED BY ONE K IN THE CAPACITY OF PARTNER OF FIRM DCI IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH, R STATED T HAT THE KEY OF LOCKER AND THE TWO ENVELOPES WERE HANDED OVER TO HIM BY THE ASSESS EEK ALSO ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON THE SAME DAY AT 2.00 AM MIDNIGHT THAT H E HAD EXECUTED THE PRONOTE AND SIGNED IT ON BEHALF OF DCI AFTER OBTAINING A SUM OF RS. 8,78,358 LATER, K FILED AN AFFIDAVIT THAT HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED AT LATE HOURS IN TH E NIGHT UNDER COERCION AND PRESSURE SUBSEQUENTLY, K ALONG WITH TWO OTHER PARTNERS OF DC I, MADE A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF A SUM OF RS. 11 LACS INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,78 ,358 AND SAME WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE THREE PARTNERSRELYING ON THE STATEMEN T OF R AND THE RETRACTED STATEMENT OF K, AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 8,78,358 UNDER S. 68 IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ALSO AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY OT(A) AND ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 19 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. EASTERN COMMERCIAL E NTERPRISES (HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA) 210 ITR 0103 ASSESSEE SHOWING A GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 5.2%REVENUE BEING OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE INFLATED PURCHASES, CALLED IN EVIDENCE ONE S FROM W HOM ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES AND APPLIED G.P. RATE OF 30%S DENIED HAVING MADE ANY SA LES TO ASSESSEE IN THE FACE OF EARLIER AFFIDAVITS CONFIRMING SUCH SALESSTATEMENT OF S NOT FURNISHED TO ASSESSEE NOR OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM GIVENCROSS EXAMINATION IS SIN E QUA NON OF THE DUE PROCESS OF TAKING EVIDENCE AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRA WN AGAINST A PARTY UNLESS THAT PARTY IS PUT ON NOTICE OF THE CASE MADE OUT AGAINST HIMMATT ER REMANDED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF S WITH OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE EVIDENCE OF (IV) KALRA GLUE FACTORY. VS. SALES TAX TRIBUNAL & ORS. ( SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) 167 ITR 0498 STATEMENT WHICH WAS NOT TESTED BY CROSS EXAMINATION IS NOT GOOD EVIDENCE. (I) BASANT LAL & CO. VS. CIT 451TR 206 (SC). 4. PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN VIOLATED: - THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT PROVIDING THE COPY OF MATERIAL AND OTHER RECORDS. HE ALSO DID NOT PROVIDE THE OPPO RTUNITY FOR CROSS EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA. SHRI N.K. GUPTA HAS SP ECIFIED DENIED BY SUBMITTING AN AFFIDAVIT THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT RELATED TO THE ASSE SSSEE SHRI JUGAL KISHORE GARG. THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST THE EST ABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PROVIDED OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PLACED HIS DEFENSE BEFORE HIM AND WOULD HAVE G IVEN THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE IN DEFENSE. THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS ARE QUOTED IN SUPP ORT: - (I) GARAI DIN JWALA PRASAD VS. CIT (1974) 96ITR 97 (ALL ) TRIBUNALNOT JUSTIFIEDAPPARENTLY, THERE WAS A VIOL ATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS THE S TATEMENT OF ONE OF THE IMPORTANT WITNESSES, NAMELY, R ON WHICH HEAVY RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE AO IS NEITHER REFERRED T O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR COPY THEREOF WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS- EXAMINING THE SAID RAUTHORITIES COULD NOT BE ABSOL VED FROM DOING SO ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS STATED BY R WERE ADMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEEK HAD NOT ONLY RETRACTED HIS EARLIER STATEMENT BUT ALSO MADE A VOLUNTARY DISCLOS URE, ALONG WITH TWO OTHER PARTNERS OF DCI, IN THE SUM OF RS. 11 LACS WHICH INCLUDED TH E AMOUNT OF PRONOTE OF RS. 8,78,358LEGAL EFFECT OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BEH IND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT FURNISHING THE COPY THEREOF TO THE ASSESSEE OR WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, IS THAT IF THE ADDITION IS MA DE, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICEORDERS OF ALL THE THREE AUTHORITIES SET ASIDE AND ADDITION DELETED. ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 20 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE APPLICABLE THE P RINCIPALS OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATERIAL WHICH IS GOIN G TO BE USED AGAINST HIM SO THAT HE MAY BE ABLE TO MEET IT. (I) MUNNA LAL MURLIDHAR VS CIT (1971) 79 ITR 540 (ALL) THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE INVOLVE A RIGHT IN THE ASSESSEE TO INSPECT THE REPORTS AND OBTAIN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS SUCH AS STATEMENTS, ORDERS, REPORTS ETC. SO AS TO BE ABLE TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL OR TO C ROSS EXAMINE WITNESS WHO HAVE GIVEN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. IT ALSO MEANS THAT THE ASSESS EE SHOULD BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE AS HE MAY CONSIDER NECESSARY. (I) TIN BOX CO. VS. CIT (2001) 115 TAXMAN 491 (SC) WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAD RECORDED THAT IF AGREED WITH THE ASSSESSEE'S SUBMISSION THAT THE ITO HAD NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD, THE TRIBUNAL WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN NOT SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER G IVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. (I) IN THE FOLLOWING IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN MAKE ENQUIRIES TO GATHER MATERIAL PRIVATELY AND CONFIDENTIALLY. HE CAN ALSO SUMMON WITNESSES AND RECORD THEIR STATEMENT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR EVEN B EHIND HIS BACK. HOWEVER THE SUBSTANCE OF ANY INFORMATION SOUGHT TO BE USED AGAINST THE AS SESSEE, SHOULD BE PUT TO HIM AND HE SHOULD HAVE FARE OPPORTUNITY. IT IS UPTO THE ASSESS EE TO AVAIL OF IT, CONSTANT WITH THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE, TO REBUT THE SAME. (A) CHIRANJI LAL STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) (B) NAMASIVAYAM CHETTIAR (S.N.) VS. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 5 79 (SC) (C) ABDUL RAZAK VS. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 361 (PAT) (D) BALASUBRAMANIAN (P.N.) VS. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 512 ( AP) (E) BAGSU DEVI BAFNA VS. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 506 (CAL) (F) CASHMIR VASTRALAYA VS. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 630 (PAT) 5. ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMEN T OF A THIRD PARTY: - IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA DIRECTOR AND KEY-PERSON OF MANGLAM GROUP. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CITES THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS JUSTIFYING THAT THE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE M ADE ON THE BASIS OF PAPERS SEIZED FROM THIRD PARTY WITHOUT LINKING THE SAME WITH THE ASSES SEE WITH PROPER EVIDENCE: - (I) CIT VS. KALYAN SUNDRAM (2007) 294 ITR 94 (SC) NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WHERE NO ENQUIRY IS MADE AN D NO EVIDENCE IS FOUND DURING SEARCH EXCEPT THE CONFLICTING STATEMENT OF THE THIR D PARTY. ACTT VS. PRABHAT OIL MILLS 52 TTJ 533 (AHM) ENTRIES IN THE DIARY SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF TH IRD PARTY WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO BRING ON RECORD CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 21 (III) ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES (KOTAH ) LTD VS. DY. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 68 LTD 312 (JAIPUR) ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE BASIS OF CONTENTS OF A DIARY ON AN EMPLOYEE. (III) AMARIIIT SINGH BAKSHI HUF VS. ASSISTANT COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2003) 263 ITR 75 (DEL) NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF NOTINGS ON DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH AT THIRD PARTY PLACE, WHEN ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORT UNITY FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. (III) PS. VENKATESHAN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 74 ITD 298 (CAL) ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY THIRD PERSON WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY FOR CROS S EXAMINATION. (III) SUNIL AQAWRAL VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX 83 ITD 1 (DEL) IT WAS HELD THAT ADDITION TO INCOME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE WITH STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTY WHICH WERE ADVERSE TO ASSESSEE. (I) JAI KUMAR JOIN VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (2007) 11 SOT (JAIPUR) (URO). NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS F OUND FROM THIRD PARTY IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. CHUHARMAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 172 250 I 38 TAXMAN 190 (SC). THE REVENUE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN RESTING ITS C ASE ON THE LOOSE PAPERS, DIARY AND DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THIRD PARTY. (IX) PRARTHANA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. VS. DEPUTY COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2001) 118 TAXMAN 112 (IT AT- AHMEDABAD) (MAG) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT LOOSE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS SE IZED FROM PREMISES OF THIRD PARTIES AND STATEMENT RECORDED AT BACK OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT IT B EING AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY TO INTERROGATE SAID DOCUMENTS AND WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY S UPPORTING EVIDENCE, COULD NOT BE MADE BASIS FOR ADDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HANDS O F ASSESSEE (IX) ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MISS LATA MANQESHKAR (1974) ITR 696 (MUMBAI) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ON APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE O N RECORD, THAT ENTRIES IN THE LEDGER OF A FIRM (THIRD PARTY) DID NOT REPRESENT ASSESSEE'S INCOME F ROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, WAS FINDING OF THE FACT NOT GIVING RISE TO ANY REFERABLE QUESTI ON OF LAW. (XI)CIT VS. SMC SHARE BROKER LTD. 288 ITR 345 :-IT WAS HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF WITNESS BEING MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION, HIS STATEMENT COUL D NOT BE RELIED UPON TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE B LOCK ASSESSMENT. (I) CIT VS. S M AQQARWAL 293 ITR 43 IT WAS HELD THAT STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE'S D AUGHTER, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE RELEVANT OR ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HER AND EVEN FROM THE STATEMENT, NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE ENTR IES MADE ON THE RELEVANT PAGE BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND REPRESENTS HIS UND ISCLOSED INCOME. ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 22 6. CONCLUSION - IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE YOUR HONOR IS REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNE D AO. 4.2 LATTER ON, A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED FURTHER SUBMISSION WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HERE IN AS UNDER: ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION:- IN CONSTITUTION OF OUR EARLIER SUBMISSION IN THIS R EGARD WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AS UNDER: 1. THAT AS PER THE TALLY DATA OF N TRADING COMPANY FO UND IN THE CLOUD DATA DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF MBDL GROUP. ALL THE ENTRIES RELATED T O LOANS AND CAPITAL WERE ACCEPTED BY MANGLAM GROUP BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE STAND TAKEN BY MANGLAM GROUP. IT IS IN THE SETTLEMENT ORDER ON PAGE NO. 121 IN PARA 7.2 WHERE IN THE ORDER OF SETTLEMENT TH E SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICANTS REPLY IN RULE 9A REPORT WAS REPRODUCED AND IT HAS BEEN ACCEP TED THAT DKJ BEING THE PARTNER OF THE GROUP AND ALL THE TRANSACTION IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUN T HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE PEAK WORKING STATEMENT AND THE PEAK OF THE SAME HAS BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2. IN PARA 2.2 THE PEAK STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE GROU P MANGLAM GROUP HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. ON PAGE 141 OF THE SETTLEMENT ORDER IN PARA 2.5 IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE PR CIT HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRECTNESS OF PEAK WORKING AND N PAGE 143 IN PARA 7.3 THE VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 06.02.2019 WAS ACCEPTED. IN PARA 7.4 V ERIFICATION REPORT DATED 18.02.2019 WAS DISCUSSED AND FINALLY THE COMMISSION FINDING IS ON PAGE NO. 149 IN PARA 7.7 THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. 3.10 AFTER METICULOUSLY GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AT LENGTH, WE FOUND THAT THE TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE CLOUD DATA OF N TRADING WAS OWNED UP BY THE MAIN PERSON OF THE COMPANY MBDL WITH REGARD TO THE TRAN SACTIONS LIKE TRANSACTIONS UNDER THE HEADING OF UNSECURED LOANS ( RECEIPT AND PAYMENT) AND CONSEQUENT INTEREST PAYMENT THEREOF. WE HAVE AL SO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 1 6-05-2019 PASSED IN THE CASE OF MBDL AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE STA TEMENT OF SHRI N.K. GUPTA, MAIN PERSON OF MBDL GROUP WHEREIN WE FOUND T HAT M/S. MANGALAM BUILDER & DEVELOPER LTD.(MBDL) HAD ALREAD Y OWNED UP ALL ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 23 THE DATA FOUND IN CLOUD AS BELONGING TO THEM. ON TH E BASIS OF THE SAME, IT FILED SETTLEMENT PETITION BEFORE SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION ON 28.03.2018. AS PER THE PETITION FILED BY MBDL BEFORE THE HON'BLE S ETTLEMENT COMMISSION THE `PEAK DEPOSIT' OF UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL INTRODUCE D, LOANS AND ADVANCES AND INTEREST PAID AND RECEIVED WAS CONSIDERED FOR C OMPUTING THE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY INCOME OF RS.15.10 CR. WAS OFFERED ON T HE BASIS OF CLOUD DATA OF N. TRADING COMPANY. THE SAME IS ACCEPTED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AT PAGE 151 OF THE ORDER DATED 16.05.201 9. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINAL ORDER WHEREIN THIS ISSUE IS DI SCUSSED IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- PARA I OF PAGE. 137-138 OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ORDER 'UNACCOUNTED CASH LOANS - CHAPTER VII OF THE RULE 9 REPORT: (PAGE NO. 128-180 OF THE REPORT):-AS OFFERE D BY THE APPLICANTS: CASH PEAK OF CASH LOANS AND CAPITAL TRA NSACTIONS: RS.15,10,77,500/- . AS WAS THE CASE WITH THE CAPITAL INTRODUCTION BY TH E PARTNERS, IN THE DATA FOUND IN TALLY P1 AND P2 AND ALSO IN THE SEIZED CASH BOOK, ALL SEIZED PURSUANT TO SEARCH, THERE WER E FOUND RECORDED ENTRIES WITH REGARD TO CASH LOANS INTRODUCED IN THE BUSINESS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS DIRECTLY AS WELL AS THROUGH CERTAIN FINANCE BROKERS. REPAYMENT OF THE SAID LOANS ALONG WITH INTEREST ON THE SAME WAS ALSO ALL FOUND RECORDED IN THE TALLY DATA. THE LINE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPLICANT GROUP, AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED EARLIER, WAS SUCH THAT REQUIRED HUGE SUMS OF CASH. FOR PURPOSES OF THE SAID, HUGE SUMS O F UNSECURED LOANS IN CASH WERE THUS TAKEN FROM THE MARKET TO MEET THE REQUIRE MENTS AND AS CASH WAS GENERATED FROM BOOKING OF FLATS/UNITS/PLOTS, THE SA ID LOANS WERE PERIODICALLY REPAID. INTEREST ON THE LOANS ALL IN CASH, WERE ALS O PAID.IN THE SEARCH CONDUCTED, IN THE SEIZED DATA, ALL SUCH COMPLETE RE CORDINGS OF LOAN RECEIVED, REPAID AND INTEREST PAID WAS ALL FOUND. H OWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ITSELF, SINCE THESE ENTRIES CO ULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY FILING CONFIRMATION OF PARTIES, THESE CASH LOANS WE RE ACCEPTED TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPLICANT GROUP IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE.THUS BASED ON THE ABOVE, THEREFORE, TO DETERMINE THE NET FUNDS GENERATED IN BUSINESS, PEAK OF THE LOAN ACCOUNTS (INCLUDING THE CAPITAL CASH ENTRIES) ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 24 WAS WORKED OUT. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPLIC ANT THAT THE LOAN INTRODUCTIONS/REPAYMENT AND THE CAPITAL INTRODUCTIO N/WITHDRAWALS ALL REPRESENTED INFLOW/ OUTFLOW OF FUNDS IN THE BUSINES S AND THUS IN THE SPIRIT OF SETTLEMENT, THE PEAK OF THE SAME WAS OFFERED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPLICANT GROUP.IN THE WORKING OF SUC H PEAK, THE FOLLOWING CASH ENTRIES RELATING TO LOANS WERE CONSIDERED: (TH E PEAK WORKING IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 422-439 OF THE P/B). - RECEIPT OF UNSECURED LOANS. - REPAYMENT OF UNSECURED LOANS. - INTEREST PAID OR RECEIVED ON CASH LOANS. THE SAM E BEING SETTLED IN CASH, THE SAME IS INCLUDED IN THE PEAK CALCULATIONS. THUS BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PEAK OF THE CASH TRANS ACTIONS WAS ARRIVED AT RS. 15,10,77,6001 AND THE SAME, BEING THE BUSINESS INCO ME OF THE GROUP WAS THUS OFFERED AS THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE GROUP. PARA 2.5 PAGE NO. 141 OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION ORDER 'THUS, BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE APPLICANT, IN THE EV ENT OF LOAN CONFIRMATIONS BEING NOT READILY AVAILABLE, IN THE S PIRIT OF SETTLEMENT, HAS CONSIDERED ALL THESE LOAN TRANSACTION AS HIS OW N TRANSACTION. IN THE TALLY DATA BOTH RECEIPT OF LOAN AS WELL AS REPAYMEN T OF LOAN IS RECORDED. THE LOANS RAISED FROM ONE PARTY IS UTILISED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE GROUP AND OUT OF SUCH BUSINESS RECEIPTS OR FURT HER LOAN RAISED, REPAYMENT IS MADE OF THE EARLIER LOAN.' PARA 7.7 (FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION) PAGE NO. 151 OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ORDER 'THE COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH PARTIES. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE COMMISSION FINDS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANTS THA T IN COMPUTATION OF PEAK THE DEBIT ENTRIES MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED. THE CONTENTION OF THE PR. CIT THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED FO R ANY BENEFIT OF DEBIT ENTRIES IN CALCULATION OF PEAK VALUES DOES NO T HOLD GROUND. THE POSITION OF THE APPLICANTS GET FURTHER FORCE FR OM THE FACT THAT THE ENTRIES BASED ON WHICH APPLICANTS HAVE COMPUTED THE PEAK VALUE, ARE RECORDED IN THE DATA FOUND IN SEARCH AND SEIZUR E. ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 25 BASED ON THE ABOVE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANTS ON THE QUANTUM OF THE PEAK AS OFFERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 15,10,77,600/- IS HEREBY ACCEPTED.' 3.11 IN RESPECT OF SURPLUS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT MAY POINT OUT THAT AS PER THE PETITION FILED BY MBDL BE FORE THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THE 'ON MONEY' OF REC EIVED BY THE GROUP ON ITS VARIOUS PROJECTS WAS CONSIDERED FO R COMPUTING THE INCOME. IN ITS ADMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE HON'B LE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, MBDL HAS EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF SUCH ' SURPLUS' WHICH WAS CREDITED TO THE PARTNER'S ACCOUNTS. .IN F ACT THE SAME REPRESENT 'ON MONEY'. ACCORDINGLY INCOME OF RS.80.0 7 CR. (RS.72.33 CR. + RS.7.75 CR.) WAS OFFERED ON THE BAS IS OF CLOUD DATA OF N. TRADING COMPANY. THE SAME IS ACCEPTED BY THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AT PAGE 57 OF THE ORD ER DATED 16.05.2019. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINAL ORDER WHEREIN THIS ISSUE IS DISCUSSED IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- PARA 21.2 OF PAGE. 11 OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION ORDER 21.2 AMOUNT OF SETTLED BOOKING ADVANCES IN TALLY DA TA THE APPLICANT GROUP RECEIVED BOOKING ADVANCES FROM ITS VARIOUS CUSTOMERS IN VARIOUS PROJECTS IN CASH, WHIC H GOT 'SETTLED' WHEN THE ENTIRE 'ON-MONEY' DUE FROM THE C USTOMER WAS RECEIVED. IN THE TALLY DATA, SUCH RECEIPTS HAVE BEE N DISTRIBUTED IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT DIRECTLY WITH ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIO N 'SURPLUS'. THE NATURE OF THESE BOOKING ADVANCES WAS IDENTICAL TO UNSETTLED BOOKING ADVANCES AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, HOWE VER, IN ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 26 SUCH CASES, NO MONEY REMAINED FURTHER DUE FROM CUST OMERS AS FAR AS 'CASH COMPONENT' WAS CONCERNED, THOUGH, PROJ ECTS REMAINS YET TO BE DELIVERED TO THE CUSTOMER. IN THE TALLY DATA, THE SAID INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE WITH ACCOUNT HEAD 'SURPLUS' FOR VARIOUS SCHEMES LIKE 'SURPLUS ANANDA', 'SURPLUS AJMER ROAD, 'SURPLUSVAISHALI ESTATE'. ALL SUCH BOOKINGS A RE TERMED AS SETTLED BOOKINGS FOR READY REFERENCE SINCE IN SU CH CASES, CASH COMPONENT HAS ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED/SETTLED WI TH CUSTOMERS. THESE ADVANCE BOOKINGS ARE ALSO NOT REVE NUE OF THE YEAR OF RECEIPT, HOWEVER, TO DETERMINE OVERALL PROF ITABILITY/CASH PROFIT, THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS 'REV ENUE' IN COMPUTATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE TOTAL OF SUCH SETTLED BOOKING RECEIVED IN CASH AS AVAILABLE IN TALLY DATA COMES AT RS.382.89 CRORES. THUS IN TOTAL THERE HAS BEEN RECE IPT OF BOOKING ADVANCES IN CASH ('ON MONEY') OF RS. 684 CR ORE (301.11 CR. + 382.89 CR.), WHICH IS TREATED AS REVE NUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME THOUGH THE SA ME IS AMOUNT REPRESENTING LIABILITY OF THE APPLICANT(S) I S GIVEN IN ENCLOSURE1. PARA 6.4 OF PAGE. 33 OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMM ISSIONER ORDER O IN THE TALLY DATA, ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE ON MONE Y WAS ALL SETTLED, THE EARLIER CASH RECEIPTS AGAINST 'BOOKING ADVANCES' WERE ALL DELETED AND ON THE SAID DATE OF FINAL SETTLEMEN T, A FRESH CONSOLIDATED CASH ENTRY WAS PASSED WHEREIN CASH WAS DEBITED AND THE 'SURPLUS - PROJECT NAME' ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED. O AFTER TRANSFER OF THE SETTLED RECEIPTS TO THE SURPL US A/C, THE SAID ON MONEY WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE PARTNERS/DIRECTORS OF THE GROUP BY DEBITING THE SAID SURPLUS ACCOUNT AND CREDITING THE PARTNERS ACCOUNTS WITH THE DESCRIPTION 'BEING SURPLUS AFTER DELETION CREDITED TO PARTNERS'. THUS THE PARTNERS WERE GIVEN CONTROL OF THE FUNDS FOR ITS PROPER UTILISATION FOR PURPOSES OF TH E PROJECTS. THE TERM 'SURPLUS' WAS A NOMENCLATURE USED TO IDENTIFY THE SETTLED ON MONEY WHICH WAS PUT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PARTNERS/DIRECTORS. O THESE ENTIRE RECEIPTS THUS ARE BOOKING RECEIPTS, WH ICH ARE REVENUE IN NATURE AND HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND OFFE RED AS REVENUE ON-MONEY INCOME IN OUR WORKING. O FURTHER REGARDING THE UTILIZATION OF THE FUNDS AS P OINTED OUT THE LD. PCIT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ABOVE-MENTIONED SURP LUS, BEING REVENUE IN NATURE (EARNED BY WAY OF ON MONEY), WAS UTILIZED WAS MEETING VARIOUS EXPENDITURES LIKE UTILIZATION OF LA ND, FOR OTHER CONSTRUCTION COST AND ALL OTHER EXPENSES RELATED TO BUSINESS. PARA 6.8 OF PAGE. 57 OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT CO M MISSION ORDER ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 27 BASED ON THE ABOVE THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPLICANTS OF THE GROUP IS SETTLED AT RS.80,07,69990/- ON THE ISSUE OF CASH PROFIT. THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SETTLED IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE GIVEN IN THE FOLLOW ING TABLE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SURPLUS BEING REFERRED TO BY THE LD. AO IS NOT PROF IT FROM THE PROJECTS BUT THE RECEIPTS OF 'ON MONEY' CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERS WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY MBDL AND ACCEPTED BY THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. 3.12 THUS ON MERITS ALSO SINCE THE AMOUNTS HAD ALRE ADY BEEN ADDED BY THE AO AND THE SAME HAD ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO T AX IN THE HANDS OF MBDL AND RELATED ENTITIES, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A ) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THOSE FACTS HAD CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE BENCH ALSO NOTED THAT NO NEW FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BY THE REVENUE IN CONTROVERTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) TO THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. IN THIS VIEW, OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IS DISMISSED. 4.1 AS REGARDS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 TO 2017-18, THE BENCH NOTED THAT THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE SIMILAR AND THE FACTS ARE ALSO SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF THE ITA NO.34/JP/2020 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS JUGAL KISHORE GAR G (DEREWALA) 28 REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IS DISMISSE D, HENCE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE BENCH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 SHALL BE APPLICABLE MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 TO 2017-18. THUS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 /09/20 20. SD/- SD/- JESK LH-'KEKZ LANHI XKSLKBZ (RAMESH C. SHARMA) (SANDEEP GOSAI N) YS[KKLNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 14/09/2020. *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT - THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI JUGAL KISHRE GARG (DEREWALA), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR . 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 34 TO 37JP/2020} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSTT. REGISTRAR