DCIT CEN CIR 2, THANE V. VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS, THANE

ITA 4078/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1282 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS; MANOJ KUMAR SINGHDRS
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURABH PARASRAMPUNIAARS
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Bogus loan; Documents seized
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b); 40A(3); 56(2); 153A; 133(6); 132; 144

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI , .., , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, HONBLEVICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4081/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H ITA NO.4299/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H 2 ITA NO.4082/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W) ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H ITA NO.4300/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H ITA NO.4083/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W) ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H 3 ITA NO.4301/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H ITA NO.4084/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W) ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H ITA NO.4302/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H 4 ITA NO.4085/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W) ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H ITA NO.4304/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H ITA NO.4303/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H 5 ITA NO.4298/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHARP REALTORS SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABLFS1302H ITA NO.6776/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 BEENA DEEPAK SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BHANDARWADA AGASHI, VIRAR (WEST) THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AQGPS2202N ITA NO.6777/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 BEENA DEEPAK SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BHANDARWADA AGASHI, VIRAR (WEST) THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AQGPS2202N 6 ITA NO.6778/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 BEENA DEEPAK SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BHANDARWADA AGASHI, VIRAR (WEST) THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AQGPS2202N ITA NO.6779/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 BEENA DEEPAK SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BHANDARWADA AGASHI, VIRAR (WEST) THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AQGPS2202N ITA NO.6780/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 BEENA DEEPAK SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BHANDARWADA AGASHI, VIRAR (WEST) THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AQGPS2202N 7 ITA NO.6781/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 BEENA DEEPAK SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BHANDARWADA AGASHI, VIRAR (WEST) THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AQGPS2202N ITA NO.6863/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. BEENA DEEPAK SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BHANDARWADA AGASHI, VIRAR (WEST) THANE ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AQGPS2202N ITA NO.5565/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q 8 ITA NO.5724/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q ITA NO.5566/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q ITA NO.5725/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q 9 ITA NO.5567/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q ITA NO.5726/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q ITA NO.5568/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q 10 ITA NO.5727/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q ITA NO.5569/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q ITA NO.5728/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q 11 ITA NO.5570/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q ITA NO.5729/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q ITA NO.5571/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE / VS. DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q 12 ITA NO.5730/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH DEEP DARPANBUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BHANDARAWADAAGASHI, VIRAR(W),THANE / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ASXPS0702Q ITA NO.7009/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DEEPAK SHAH (HUF) DEEP DARPANDUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BHANDARAWDA, AGASHI VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AADHD5651B ITA NO.7010/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DEEPAK SHAH (HUF) DEEP DARPANDUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BHANDARAWDA, AGASHI VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AADHD5651B 13 ITA NO.7012/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PANKAJ B. THAKUR (HUF) THAKUR NIWAS OPP. RAILWAY STATION VIRAR(W), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAGHP3342E ITA NO.7013/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PANKAJ B. THAKUR (HUF) THAKUR NIWAS OPP. RAILWAY STATION VIRAR(W), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAGHP3342E ITA NO.7017/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DEEPAK SHAH (HUF) DEEP DARPANDUNGLOW CROSS NAKA, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BHANDARAWDA, AGASHI VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AADHD5651B 14 ITA NO.6771/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B ITA NO.6772/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B ITA NO.6773/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B 15 ITA NO.6774/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B ITA NO.6775/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B ITA NO.6803/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B 16 ITA NO.6855/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B ITA NO.6856/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B ITA NO.6857/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B 17 ITA NO.6858/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B ITA NO.6859/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B ITA NO.6860/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. HEMANT R. MHATRE RADHAKRISHNA BUNGLOW NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE. ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9780B 18 ITA NO.6711/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 JIVDANI HOUSING PROJECTS LIMITED 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ACRADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AACCJ2628Q ITA NO.6712/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 KISHORE D. NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABWPN0276A ITA NO.6713/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 KISHORE D. NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABWPN0276A 19 ITA NO.6714/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 KISHORE D. NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABWPN0276A ITA NO.6715/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 KISHORE D. NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABWPN0276A ITA NO.6716/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 KISHORE D. NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABWPN0276A 20 ITA NO.6867/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. KISHORE D. NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABWPN0276A ITA NO.6868/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. KISHORE D. NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABWPN0276A ITA NO.7011/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 KISHORE D. NAIK (HUF) NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAEHK8794D 21 ITA NO.7016/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 202-13 KISHORE D. NAIK (HUF) NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAEHK8794D ITA NO.6725/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PRATIBHA KISHOR NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ADGPN0829D ITA NO.6726/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PRATIBHA KISHOR NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ADGPN0829D 22 ITA NO.6727/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PRATIBHA KISHOR NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ADGPN0829D ITA NO.6728/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRATIBHA KISHOR NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ADGPN0829D ITA NO.6729/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PRATIBHA KISHOR NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ADGPN0829D 23 ITA NO.6730/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 PRATIBHA KISHOR NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ADGPN0829D ITA NO.6864/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. PRATIBHA KISHOR NAIK NAMRATABUNGLOW, BOLINJ VIRARNALLASOPARA ROAD VIRAR(W), THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ADGPN0829D ITA NO.6717/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 RUPALI HEMANT MHATRE NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9781A 24 ITA NO.6718/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 RUPALI HEMANT MHATRE NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9781A ITA NO.6861/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. RUPALI HEMANT MHATRE NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9781A ITA NO.6719/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 RUPALI HEMANT MHATRE NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9781A 25 ITA NO.6862/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. RUPALI HEMANT MHATRE NEAR RAILWAY SUB-WAY GAOTHAN, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABNPM9781A ITA NO.6724/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SWASTIK ESTATE 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ACRADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.ABTFS2232E ITA NO.6854/MUM /2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. SWASTIK ESTATE SHOP NO.1, PARIJAT GAOTHAN, VIRAR(WEST) THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.ABTFS2232E 26 ITA NO.6079/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 2 ND FLOOR, GULMOHAR PLAZA NEXT TO DIVEKAR HOSPITAL VIVA COLLEGE ROAD,VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E ITA NO.6153/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E ITA NO.6080/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 2 ND FLOOR, GULMOHAR PLAZA NEXT TO DIVEKAR HOSPITAL VIVA COLLEGE ROAD,VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E 27 ITA NO.6154/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E ITA NO.6081/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 2 ND FLOOR, GULMOHAR PLAZA NEXT TO DIVEKAR HOSPITAL VIVA COLLEGE ROAD,VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E ITA NO.6155/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E 28 ITA NO.6082/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 2 ND FLOOR, GULMOHAR PLAZA NEXT TO DIVEKAR HOSPITAL VIVA COLLEGE ROAD,VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E ITA NO.6156/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E ITA NO.6083/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 2 ND FLOOR, GULMOHAR PLAZA NEXT TO DIVEKAR HOSPITAL VIVA COLLEGE ROAD,VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E 29 ITA NO.6157/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E ITA NO.6084/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 ROOM NO.10, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 2 ND FLOOR, GULMOHAR PLAZA NEXT TO DIVEKAR HOSPITAL VIVA COLLEGE ROAD,VIRAR(W) THANE(W), THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E ITA NO.6158/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AANCS6636E 30 ITA NO.6538/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 VIVA SHELTERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(WEST) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AADFV5367N ITA NO.6539/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 VIVA SHELTERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(WEST) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AADFV5367N ITA NO.6540/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 VIVA SHELTERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(WEST) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AADFV5367N 31 ITA NO.6541/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 VIVA SHELTERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(WEST) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AADFV5367N ITA NO.6383/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. VIVA SHELTERS GALI NUMBER-10 NEW NISHIGANDHA SOCIETY MANVELPADA ROAD VIRAR (EAST), THANE ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AADFV5367N ITA NO.6720/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 VIVA SWASTIK ASSOCIATES GALI NO.10 NEW NISHIGANDHA SOCIETY MANVELPADA ROAD VIRAR(E), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAHFV8507G 32 ITA NO.6721/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 VIVA SWASTIK ASSOCIATES GALI NO.10 NEW NISHIGANDHA SOCIETY MANVELPADA ROAD VIRAR(E), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAHFV8507G ITA NO.6722/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 VIVA SWASTIK ASSOCIATES GALI NO.10 NEW NISHIGANDHA SOCIETY MANVELPADA ROAD VIRAR(E), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAHFV8507G ITA NO.6723/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 VIVA SWASTIK ASSOCIATES GALI NO.10 NEW NISHIGANDHA SOCIETY MANVELPADA ROAD VIRAR(E), THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAHFV8507G 33 ITA NO.4267/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J ITA NO.4268/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(WEST) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J ITA NO.4075/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J 34 ITA NO.4269/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J ITA NO.4076/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J ITA NO.4270/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J 35 ITA NO.4077/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J ITA NO.4271/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J ITA NO.4078/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) $% &' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J 36 ITA NO.4272/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J ITA NO.4079/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J ITA NO.4080/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR (WEST) THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAGFV9964J 37 ITA NO.6731/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 VIVA SWASTIK ESTATE 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAIFV2375H ITA NO.6865/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. VIVA SWASTIK ESTATE 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAIFV2375H ITA NO.6732/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 VIVA SWASTIK ESTATE 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAIFV2375H 38 ITA NO.6866/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE THANE(W), THANE-400604 / VS. VIVA SWASTIK ESTATE 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAIFV2375H ITA NO.6733/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 VIVA SWASTIK ESTATE 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAIFV2375H ITA NO.6734/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 VIVA SWASTIK ESTATE 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAIFV2375H 39 ITA NO.6735/MUM /2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 VIVA SWASTIK ESTATE 1 ST FLOOR, THAKUR ARCADE STATION ROAD, VIRAR(W) THANE-401 303 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.13, A-WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO.16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE(W), THANE-400604 ( $%&' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAIFV2375H $%&' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI MUKUND BAKSHI, SHRI HEMANT SUTHAR & SHRI SAURABH PARASRAMPUNIA-ARS # / REVENUE BY SHRI B. SRINIVAS & MANOJ KUMAR SINGH-DRS ( #) * '+ / DATE OF HEARING : 26/10/2018 * '+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/11/2018 / O R D E R PER BENCH THIS BUNCH OF 114 APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AND ALSO BY THE REVENUE FOR DIFFERENT ASS ESSMENT YEARS, CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 2. THE GROUND RAISED IN EACH GROUP OF CASES ARE SUMMARIZED HEREUNDER:- 40 IN THE CASE OF SHARP REALTORS, THE GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.4081/MUM/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,86,34,541/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO E STABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY HIM AND ALSO I T IS THE DUTY AND PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF CLAIM MADE BY HIM IN THE FINANCIAL STAT EMENTS? 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,86,34,541/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PU RCHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT DETAILS TO ESTABLISH THE PURCHASES AS GENUINE NOR COMMEND ON THE STATEMENTS OF HAWALA PARTIES RECORDE D U/S 14 OF THE SALES TAX ACT WHICH WERE PROVIDED TO HIM. 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,86,34,541/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PU RCHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE HAWALA PAR TIES HAVE NOT REPLIED TO THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 11, PUNE MAY BE VACATED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORES. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY GROUND / GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.4082/MUM/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,00,92,383/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WIT HOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO E STABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY HIM AND ALSO I T IS THE DUTY AND PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF CLAIM MADE BY HIM IN THE FINANCIAL STAT EMENTS? 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,00,92,383/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS P URCHASES 41 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT DETAILS TO ESTABLISH THE PURCHASES AS GENUINE NOR COMMEND ON THE STATEMENTS OF HAWALA PARTIES RECORDE D U/S 14 OF THE SALES TAX ACT WHICH WERE PROVIDED TO HIM. 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,00,92,383/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS P URCHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE HAWALA PAR TIES HAVE NOT REPLIED TO THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 11, PUNE MAY BE VACATED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORES. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY GROUND / GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.4083/MUM/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,65,01,037/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO E STABLISH THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN PARTIE S AND ALSO IT IS THE DUTY AND PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSES SEE TO ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF CLAIM MADE BY HIM IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS? 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,65,01,037/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURE D LOANS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT UNSECURED LOANS ARE INCLUDED IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH INDICATE THAT THE SAID LO ANS ARE INCLUDED IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH INDICATE THAT THE SAID LOANS ARE CASH LOANS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 269SS AND 269T OF T HE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO MATCH THE ENTRIES REFLECTED IN THESE SEIZED PAPERS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO NOTE T HE FACT THAT SET OFF COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS THE LOANS ARE IN THE MO DE OF CASH AND OUT OF BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 111, PUNE MAY BE VACATED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORES. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY GROUND / GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 42 ITA NO.4084/MUM/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.1,65,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SINCE T HE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE IN THE MODE OF CASH THEREFORE NO SET OFF OR TELESCOPING COULD BE ALLOWED /GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE . 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, PUNE MAY BE VACATED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORES. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AD, AMEND OR ALTER AN Y GROUND/GROUNDS, OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.4085/MUM/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS.10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNTS OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENSE W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO G IVE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF EXPEN SES OR DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID OR WAS PAYABLE? 2. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.15,56,72,667/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RE CEIPTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO GIVE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE AB OVE MENTIONED RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR AND REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE? 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.15,56,72,667/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RE CEIPTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AS PER THE SEIZE D DOCUMENTS, THE AMOUNT IS SHOWN AS RECEIVED TOWARDS THE SALE OF VARIOUS FLATS AND SHOPS IN THE PROJECT DURV AS DEVELOPED AND CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.8,51,19,640/-ON ACCOUNT OF CASH EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO G IVE 43 NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT SUCH EXP ENSES AND AS SUCH ALL SUCH CASH EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWABL E U/S 40A(3)/69C RWS 115BBE OF THE ACT? 5. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.8,51,19,640/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE IN THE MODE OF CASH AND THEREFORE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.4299/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING ADDIT IONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.50, 00,000/- OUT OF RS.3,36,34,541/-, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THE SAME AS UNPROVED PURCHASES. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING ADDIT IONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,0 0,000/- OUT OF RS.3,36,34,541/- , AND NOT ACCEPTING THE CLA IM OF THE APPELLANT TO TAX ONLY CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT. 3. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,38,88,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND/ FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,38,88,000/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE 44 TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATED DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 4. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4300/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING ADDIT IONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,71,57,700/- OUT OF RS.12,72,50,083/-, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAME AS UNPROVED PURCHASE S. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKING ADDIT IONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF 45 RS.1,71,57,700/- OUT OF RS.12,72,50,083/- , AND NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT TO TAX ONLY CE RTAIN PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT. 3. (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEAL) ERR ED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME HOLDING THAT THE ON-MONEY RECE IPTS OFRS.3,08,82,227/- IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH ON- MONEY. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THA T ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT C OULD BE TAXED. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ON-MONEY RECEIPTS OUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE SAME YEAR IN WHIC H THE ACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE AS PER THE REGULA R METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. 4. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,70,77,755/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND/ FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,70,77,755/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD 46 NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATED DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 5. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4301/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN THE ADDITION S TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ABSENCE O F ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL; DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION AND DIWALI EXPENSE RS.3,94 ,500/- THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT/EVIDENCES FOUND IN THE COURS E OF SEARCH ACTION U/S 132. THESE ADDITIONS ARE PRAYED T O BE HELD AS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 AND ARE PRAYED TO BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DIWALI EXPENSE OF RS.1,04,500/- BY NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND TREATI NG THE SAME AS NOT PRESSED, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE EXPENSE. TH E LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THESE EXPENSES AS AL LOWABLE. 4. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,00,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND/ F SI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,00,000/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING 47 THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATED DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 5. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4302/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN THE ADDITION S TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ABSENCE O F ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL; DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION AND DIWALI EXPENSE RS.10,48,310/- 48 THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT/EVIDENCES FOUND IN THE COURS E OF SEARCH ACTION U/S 132. THESE ADDITIONS ARE PRAYED T O BE HELD AS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 AND ARE PRAYED TO BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.90,00,000/- TREATING THE RECEIPTS AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WI THOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT (APPEA L) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND D ELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DIWALI EXPENSE OF RS.5,96,310/- BY NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND TREATI NG THE SAME ARE NOT PRESSED, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE EXPENSE 5. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS I N ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,71,58,423/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND/ FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,71,58,423/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATED 49 DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 6. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4303/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,64,73,407/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND/ F SI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,64,73,407/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD 50 NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATED DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4304/MUM/2017 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,23,32,281/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND/ F SI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,23,32,281/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATED DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 51 ITA NO.4298/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C WERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE APPEL LANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.26,74,08,400/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED/DELETED (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.26,74,08,400/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EF FECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFI T EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED COULD BE TAXED AS A GAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D) THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED 52 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 3. NOW WE SHALL SUMMARIZE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN BEE NA DEEPAK SHAH, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6776/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O.IN ADDITION OF RS.2,97,51 5/- ON ACCOUNT OF NOTING OF INTEREST WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAV E ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO PAYMENT WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE NOTINGS MADE AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6777/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O.IN ADDITION OF RS.1,25,32 8/- ON ACCOUNT OF NOTING OF INTEREST WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAV E ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO PAYMENT WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE NOTINGS MADE AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6778/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O.IN ADDITION OF RS.10,20,1 80/- ON ACCOUNT OF NOTING OF INTEREST WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAV E ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO PAYMENT WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE NOTINGS MADE AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6779/MUM/2017 53 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O.IN ADDITION OF RS.1,23,82 5/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL RENTAL INCOM E AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT TH E RENT OF RS.1,23,825/- FROM ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. WAS NOT R ECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION THUS, CONFIRMED IN T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS BASELESS. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6780/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O.IN ADDITION OF RS.12,750/ - IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL RENTAL INCOME AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT WITHOUT CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE RENT OF RS.12, 750/- FROM SYNAPSE EDUCARE INSTITUTE LLP IS STATED FROM A.Y. 2 015-16. THE ADDITION THUS, CONFIRMED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION IS BASELESS. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,18,89,564/- IN RELATION TO THE PURCHASE OF LAN D / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWI NG CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AN D HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O IN ADDITION OF RS.2,18,89 ,564/- IN RELATION TO THE UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHA SE OF DHOWLI LAND FOUND TO BE NOTED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS W ITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT TH E SAME WAS PAID OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT OR OTHER FAMILY / GROUP MEMBERS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE DATE WISE NOTING OF THE AMOUNT RE CEIVED ON SALE OF DHOWLI LAND WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND THUS, OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED BEN EFIT OF TELESCOPING. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL . ITA NO.6863/MUM/2018 54 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT T HAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSES WERE MA DE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AND ITS UT ILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6781/MUM/2017 1.(A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,12 ,75,284/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND /FSI WITHOUT AFFORD ING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUC H ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SA ME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED/DELETED (B) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ENHANCING THE ADDITIO N PROPOSED OF RS.4,12,75,284/- IN RELATION TO THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPT ON SALE OF DHOWLI LAND FOUND TO BE NOTED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE DATE WISE NOTING OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF DHOWLI LAND WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND THUS, NO ADDI TION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, (A) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,12,75, 284/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND / FSI WAS LIABLE TO 55 BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EF FECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,12,75,284/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLA NT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND / FSI CANNOT BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE O F ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVID ENCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D) THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE UN ACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROPRIATE DIRECT IONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 4. IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH, THE GROUN DS RAISED ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- ITA NO.5565/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT 56 AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.5566/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.5567/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 57 ITA NO.5568/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.5569/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.5570/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE 58 EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO. 5571/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.5724/MUM/2017 1.(A)THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN ACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,0 7,150/- REPRESENTING THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED T OWARDS PURCHASE / DEVELOPMENT OF LAND WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUC H 59 ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE THE SA ME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT TH AT OTHER GROUP CONCERNS AND MEMBERS HAVE SUFFICIENT SOURCE O F FUND TO MAKE PAYMENTS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPE AL) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE GROUP CASH FLOW SUBMITTED. 2.YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.5725/MUM/2017 1. (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEED OF SALE OF LAND / FSI NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS) IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT COULD BE TAXED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN CASH TOWARDS THE PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / FSI AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENT INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGH T TO HAVE HELD THAT SUCH PROVISIONS COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO P AYMENTS NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND OUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE SAME YEAR IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTED SA LE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE AS PER THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACC OUNTING. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER , AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) APPEAL. ITA NO.5726/MUM/2017 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,94,00,000/- REPRESENTING THE UNEXPLAINED EXPEN DITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PURCHASE / DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / F SI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWI NG CAUSE 60 AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B)ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEED OF SALE OF LAND / FSI NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS) IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT COULD BE TAXED. (C) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN CASH TOWARDS THE PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / FSI AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGH T TO HAVE HELD THAT SUCH PROVISIONS COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO P AYMENTS NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (D) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND OUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE SAME YEAR IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTED SA LE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE AS PER THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACC OUNTING. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,50,78,500/- ON ACC OUNT OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEP TED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE. 3.YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.5727/MUM/2017 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,96,59,142/- REPRESENTING THE UNEXPLAINED EXPEN DITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PURCHASE / DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / F SI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWI NG CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. 61 (B)ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEED OF SALE OF LAND / FSI NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS) IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT COULD BE TAXED. (C) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN CASH TOWARDS THE PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / FSI AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGH T TO HAVE HELD THAT SUCH PROVISIONS COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO P AYMENTS NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (D) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND OUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE SAME YEAR IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTED SA LE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE AS PER THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACC OUNTING. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,31,20,136/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEP TED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUM ENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE S UBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAV E ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADD ITION MADE. 4.YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.5728/MUM/2017 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,13,39,5000/- REPRESENTING THE UNEXPLAINED 62 EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PURCHASE / DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B)ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEED OF SALE OF LAND / FSI NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS) IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT COULD BE TAXED. (C) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN CASH TOWARDS THE PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / FSI AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGH T TO HAVE HELD THAT SUCH PROVISIONS COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO P AYMENTS NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (D) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND OUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE SAME YEAR IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTED SA LE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE AS PER THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACC OUNTING. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,27,106/- ON ACCOUN T OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEP TED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,32,484/- (13,82,48 4 + 3,50,000 + 1,00,000) ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RENT AL INCOME NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPE LLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLAN T. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 4.YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 63 ITA NO.5729/MUM/2017 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,69,97,500/- REPRESENTING THE UNEXPLAINED EXPE NDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PURCHASE / DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / F SI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWI NG CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2)AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEED OF SALE OF LAND/ FSI NOT R ECORDED IN BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS) IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT COULD BE TAXED. (C) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN CASH TOWARDS THE PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / FSI AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGH T TO HAVE HELD THAT SUCH PROVISIONS COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO P AYMENTS NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND OUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE SAME YEAR IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTED SA LE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE AS PER THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACC OUNTING. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CI(APPEAL) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,24,80,000/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPT ED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.61,39,500/- APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 56(2)(B) OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE PAYMENT SIN CASH WHICH IS NOT RE CORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT FOUND TO BE NOTED ON TH E SEIZED DOCUMENT AND ON CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PAID (RECORDED AND UNRECORDED BOTH) I S HIGHER 64 THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND D ELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,20,14,030/- APPLYIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 56(2)(B) OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE PAYMENTS IN CASH, WHICH IS NOT R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT FOUND TO BE NOTED ON SE IZED DOCUMENT AND ON CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PAID (RECORDED AND UNRECORDED BOTH )I S HIGHER THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND D ELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,27,712/- ON ACCOUN T OF UNDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUM ENTS S INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE S UBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAV E ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADD ITION MADE. 6. (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEED OF SALE OF LAND/FSI OF RS.1,93,48,840/- NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS) IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WI THOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THEREAGINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEA LS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT COULD BE TAXED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN CASH TOWARDS THE PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / FSI AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGH T TO HAVE HELD THAT SUCH PROVISIONS COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO P AYMENTS NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND OUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE SAME YEAR IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTED SA LE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE AS PER THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACC OUNTING. 65 7. (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CI(APPEAL) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEED OF SALE OF LAND / FSI OF RS.1,19,50,000/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THER EFORE SO BE TAXED IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT BELONGS TO SHRI HEAMANT MHATRE. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEED OR SALE OF LAND / FSI OF RS.1,19,50,000/- NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS) IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WIT HOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEA L) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT COULD BE TAXED. C) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN CASH TOWARDS THE PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / FSI AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGH T TO HAVE HELD THAT SUCH PROVISIONS COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO P AYMENTS NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPT TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND O UGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE SAME YEAR IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTED SA LE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE AS PER THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACC OUNTING. 8. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.5730/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.42,79,764/- ON ACCOUN T OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPELLANT) OUGHT TO HAVE ACC EPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,22,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUM ENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE S UBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED 66 THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADD ITION MADE. 3. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,58,74,000/- AS AGAINST ADDITION MADE BY THE L D. A.O. OF RS.88,00,000/- REPRESENTING THE UNEXPLAINED EXPE NDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PURCHASE / DEVELOPMENT OF LAND WIT HOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251 (2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL ERR ED IN NOT ALLOWING PROPER BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING I.E. SET OFF OF EXPENDITURE / INVESTMENTS AGAINST RECEIPTS THEREBY MAKING DOUBLE ADDITIONS, ONCE ON ACCOUNT OF INFLOW OF FUND S AND AGAIN ON ACCOUNT OF OUT FLOW THEREOF. (C) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT TH AT OTHER GROUP CONCERNS AND MEMBERS HAVE SUFFICIENT SOURCE O F FUND TO MAKE PAYMENTS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPE AL) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE GROUP CASH FLOW SUBMITTED. 4. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 5. IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK SHAH (HUF), THE GROUNDS RAISED, ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- ITA NO.7009/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,29,917/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN WITHOU T 67 CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD . CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL ITA NO.7010/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.15,40,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FS I WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B)THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANCI NG THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED FROM SALE OF SHOPS AND FLATS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND NOT MA DE ENHANCEMENT. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL ITA NO.7012/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS 68 PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.15,40,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FS I WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B)THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANCI NG THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED FROM SALE OF SHOPS AND FLATS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND NOT MA DE ENHANCEMENT. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL ITA NO.7013/MUM/2017 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2 THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,50,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT TRANSACTION OF LAND WI TH TATA HOUSING LTD. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED T HE ADDITION MADE. 3 YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL ITA NO.7017/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR 69 ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,80,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT TRANSACTION OF LAND WI TH TATA HOUSING LTD. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED T HE ADDITION MADE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL 6. IN THE CASE OF HEMANT R. MHATRE, THE GROUNDS R AISED, ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6771/MUM/2017 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,31,80,000/- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPT TOWARDS SALE OF LAND WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEME NT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED /DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RSS.1,31,80,000/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 70 (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6803/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.7,12,500 /- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF IM MOVABLE PROPERTY REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION O F THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP CONCER NS ARE HAVING HUGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOU ND TO HAVE BEEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH IS AV AILABLE FOR MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW ANDIN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,76,000/- REPRESENTING THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDI TURE INCURRED TOWARDS PURCHASE / DEVELOPMENT OF LAND WIT HOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B)ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ERR EDINNOT ALLOWING PROPER BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING I.E. SET OFF OF EXPENDITURE / INVESTMENTS AGAINST RECEIPTS THEREBY MAKING DOUBLE ADDITIONS, ONCE ON ACCOUNT OF INFLOW OF FUND S AND AGAIN ON ACCOUNT OF OUT FLOW THEREOF (C)ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL)HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT TH AT OTHER GROUP CONCERNS AND MEMBERS HAVE SUFFICIENT SOURCE O F FUND TO MAKE PAYMENTS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD.CIT(APPEA L) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE GROUP CASH FLOW SUBMITTED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 71 ITA NO.6772/MUM/2017 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,85,28,974/- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPT TOWARDS SALE OF LAND WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEME NT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED /DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,85,28,974/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6773/MUM/2017 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,92,69,434/- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPT TOWARDS SALE OF LAND WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEME NT AS 72 MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED /DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,92,69,434/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6774/MUM/2017 1. A)THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.34,22,913/- U/S. 56(2)(VII)(B) REJECTING THE EXP LANATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE DELETED THE SUBMISSION CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION O F THE APPELLANT THAT NO SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. (B)WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD . AO IN ADDITION OF RS.34,22,913/- U/S. 56(2)(VII)(B) WITHO UT REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO AND SHOULD HAVE CONFIRMED THE 73 VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE ADDITION THUS, MADE IS PRAYED TO BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.15,000 /- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL RENTAL INCOM E AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT TH E RENT OF RS.15,000/- FROM MRS. MANJUSHRI SHARMA WAS NOT RECE IVED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW ANDIN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,25,70,592/- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPT TOWARDS SALE OF LAND WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEME NT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,25,70,592/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D) THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN F ACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A. WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY INVOKI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3 ) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE UN ACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROPRIATE DIRECT IONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.45,98, 971/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT ON AC COUNT OF STP LINES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE 74 APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N. 5. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6775/MUM/2017 1. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.35,81,750/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD . CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPE LLANT AND HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,41,32,885/- REPRESENTING THE UNEXPLAINED EXPEN DITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PURCHASE / DEVELOPMENT OF LAND WIT HOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ER RED IN NOT ALLOWING PROPER BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING I.E. SET OFF OF EXPENDITURE / INVESTMENTS AGAINST RECEIPTS THEREBY MAKING DOUBLE ADDITIONS, ONCE ON ACCOUNT OF INFLOW OF FUND S AND AGAIN ON ACCOUNT OF OUT FLOW THEREOF. (C) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT TH AT OTHER GROUP CONCERNS AND MEMBERS HAVE SUFFICIENT SOURCE O F FUND TO MAKE PAYMENTS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPE AL) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE GROUP CASH FLOW SUBMITTED. 3. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.24,250/- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF VASANT RAUT LAND WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEME NT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, BY AN AMOUN T OF RS.24,250/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE S AID AMOUNT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE GROUP CASH FLOW AND THUS, SEPARATE ADDITION WILL AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION O F SAME AMOUNT. 75 4. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 7. IN THE CASE OF HEMANT MHATRE, THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6855/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT,1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF UNSECURED LOAN FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO VE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS, AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN PARTIES NOT ONLY AT ASSESSMENT STAGE BUT APPELLATE STAGE ALSO AND HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE LO AN CREDITOR. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND / GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6856/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 76 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF UNSECURED LOAN FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO VE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS, AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN PARTIES NOT ONLY AT ASSESSMENT STAGE BUT APPELLATE STAGE ALSO AND HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVIDING T HE GENUINENESS CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE LO AN CREDITOR. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6857/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF UNSECURED LOAN FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO VE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS, AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN PARTIES NOT ONLY AT ASSESSMENT STAGE BUT APPELLATE STAGE ALSO 77 AND HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVIDING T HE GENUINENESS CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE LO AN CREDITOR. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY ITA NO.6858/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF UNSECURED LOAN FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO VE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS, AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN PARTIES NOT ONLY AT ASSESSMENT STAGE BUT APPELLATE STAGE ALSO AND HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVIDING T HE GENUINENESS CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE LO AN CREDITOR. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6859/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE 78 ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF UNSECURED LOAN FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO VE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS, AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN PARTIES NOT ONLY AT ASSESSMENT STAGE BUT APPELLATE STAGE ALSO AND HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVIDING T HE GENUINENESS CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE LO AN CREDITOR. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6860/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF UNSECURED LOAN FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO VE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS, AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN PARTIES NOT ONLY AT ASSESSMENT STAGE BUT APPELLATE STAGE ALSO AND HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVIDING T HE 79 GENUINENESS CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE LO AN CREDITOR. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 8. IN THE CASE OF JIVDANI HOUSING PROJECT, THE GROU NDS ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6711/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.4,00,00,00 0/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY, WHICH IS SOURCED OUT OF THE FUD PROVIDED BY THE APP ELLANT COMPANY, FOR WANT OF SOURCE OF PAYMENT. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED TELESCOPING OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTORS/ MEMBERS AGAIN ST UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE INCURRED. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO AD, ALTER, AME ND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 9. IN THE CASE OF KISHORE D. NAIK, THE GROUNDS RAIS ED ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6712/MUM/2017 1.(A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.65,80,916/- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RE CEIVED ON SALE OF PALGHAR LAND AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U /S. 69 OF THE ACT AS PROPOSED BY THE LD. A.O. WITHOUT AFFO RDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUC H ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AND HENCE THE S AME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN NOT GRANTING ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRE D IN PURCHASE OF LAND AS PER THE NOTINGS FOUND IN THE SE IZED DOCUMENTS. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6713/MUM/2017 80 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME REJECTING THE EXPLANAT ION AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE DELETED THE SUBMISSION CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION O F THE APPELLANT THAT NO SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. A)THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE IN CASH REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF TH E APPELLANT THAT APPELLANTS NAME IS NOT APPEARING AG AINST THIS CASH PAYMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N. B)WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUG HT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROU P CONCERNS ARE HAVING HUGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD H AVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 6714/MUM/2017 1. A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.28,22,794/- US/. 56(2)(VII)(B) REJECTING THE EXP LANATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE DELETED THE SUBMISSION CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION O F THE APPELLANT THAT NO SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. (B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD . AO IN ADDITION OF RS.28,22,794/- U/S. 56(2) (VII)(B) WITH OUT REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO AND SHOULD HAVE CONFIRMED VAL UATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE ADDITION THUS, MADE IS PRAYED TO BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF 81 RS.30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE APP ELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE SUBMISSION CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.1,16,03,676/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH PAY MENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROU P CONCERNS ARE HAVING HUGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD H AVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.36,80,16 4/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHA SE OF LAND REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF TH E APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED TH E FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP CONCERNS ARE HAVING H UGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE B EEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FO R MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.24,19,42 4/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH INVESTMENT REJECTING TH E EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD . CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP CONCERNS ARE HAVING HUGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTE D CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOC UMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN BE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 6. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S)OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6715/MUM/2017 82 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CO NFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.11,73,50 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHA SE OF LAND REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF TH E APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED TH E FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP CONCERNS ARE HAVING H UGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE B EN NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FO R MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.2,18,80,061/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOW ED METHOD. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BY TREATING ENTIRE RECEIPT AS INCOME WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THEREAGAINST D ESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEA LS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 3. A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.32,15,449/- REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMIS SION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANTS NAME IS NOWHERE MENTIONED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) OU GHT TO HAVE DELETED THE SUBMISSION CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS ION OF THE APPELLANT. B) THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT T HAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP CONCERNS ARE HAVING HUGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NOT ED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.80,00,00 0/- REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE APP ELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP CONCERNS ARE HAV ING HUGE 83 AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE B EEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FO R MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.3,25,77, 250/- REJECTING THE EXPLANATION ;AND SUBMISSION OF THE AP PELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP CONCERN ARE HAVI NG HUGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE B EEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FO R MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 6. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S)OF APPEAL. IT NO.6716/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.2,49,598 /- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD . CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE SUBMISSION CONSIDERING TH E SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. A)THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.2,25,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE IN CASH REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF TH E APPELLANT THAT APPELLANTS NAME IS NOT APPEARING AG AINST THIS CASH PAYMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) O UGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP CONCERNS ARE HAVING HUGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOC UMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 3. A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE IN CASH REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF TH E 84 APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED TH E SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) O UGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP CONCERNS ARE HAVING HUGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NOTED N ON THE SEIZED D OCUMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 4. A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.67,52,418/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENT TO TECH B UILT INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPMENT PVT.LTD. BY THE ASSESS EE IN CASH REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSION OF TH E APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED TH E SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) O UGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP CONCERNS ARE HAVING HUGE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOC UMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING SUCH PAYMENT AND THUS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 5. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6867/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF THE PEA K THEORY 85 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO CORRELATE THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED AS LOA N IS THE SAME AMOUNT WHICH WAS REPAID. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6868/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF THE PEA K THEORY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO CORRELATE THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED AS LOA N IS THE SAME AMOUNT WHICH WAS REPAID. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 10. IN THE CASE OF KISHORE D. NAIK, THE GROUNDS ARE SUMMARIZED HEREUNDER:- ITA NO.7016/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FO R ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OU GHT TO BE A 86 SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT IS FOU ND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VO ID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,00, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELE TED THE ADDITION MADE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.7011/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FO R ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OU GHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT IS FOU ND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VO ID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,00, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELE TED THE ADDITION MADE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 11. IN THE CASE OF PRATIBHA KISHORE, THE GROUNDS RA ISED ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6725/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.1,31,4 30/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. C IT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT THE INVESTMENT IS MADE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECEI PT FROM SALE OF LAND / FSI IN THE CASE OF FAMILY / GROUP ME MBERS AND SHOULD HAVE TREATED THE CREDIT AS EXPLAINED. 87 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6726/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.1,91,6 17/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. C IT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT THE INVESTMENT IS MADE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECEI PT FROM SALE OF LAND / FSI IN THE CASE OF FAMILY / GROUP ME MBERS AND SHOULD HAVE TREATED THE CREDIT AS EXPLAINED. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6728/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.3,44,5 80/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD.CI T (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT THE INVESTMENT IS MADE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECEI PT FROM SALE OF LAND/ FSI IN THE CASE OF FAMILY / GROUP MEM BERS AND SHOULD HAVE TREATED THE CREDIT AS EXPLAINED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.12,750 /- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL RENTAL INCOM E AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT TH E RENT OF RS.12,750/- FROM SYNAPSE EDUCARE INSTITUTE LLP IS S TARTED FROM A.Y. 2015-16. THE ADDITION THUS, CONFIRMED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS BASELESS CONSIDERING THE REM AND REPORT OF THE LD. A.O. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.1,36,0 08/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL RENTAL INCOM E AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AS PER THE INDIVIDUAL TRANSACT ION STATEMENT (ITS) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE RENT OF RS.1,36,008/- WAS NOT RE CEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTE D THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N. 88 4. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6727/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.96,645 /- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD.CI T (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT THE INVESTMENT IS MADE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECEI PT FROM SALE OF LAND/ FSI IN THE CASE OF FAMILY / GROUP MEM BERS AND SHOULD HAVE TREATED THE CREDIT AS EXPLAINED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,48,930/- IN RELATION TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.1,48,9 30/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD.CI T (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT THE INVESTMENT IS MADE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECEI PT FROM SALE OF LAND/ FSI IN THE CASE OF FAMILY / GROUP MEM BERS AND SHOULD HAVE TREATED THE CREDIT AS EXPLAINED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6729/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.6,08,6 48/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD.CI T (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT THE INVESTMENT IS MADE OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECEI PT FROM SALE OF LAND/ FSI IN THE CASE OF FAMILY / GROUP MEM BERS AND SHOULD HAVE TREATED THE CREDIT AS EXPLAINED. 89 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,81,136/- IN RELATION TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.7,81,1 36/- IN RELATION TO THE UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHA SE OF DHOWLI LAND FOUND TO BE NOTED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS W ITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT TH E SAME WAS PAID OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT BELONGING T O THE APPELLANT OR OTHER FAMILY / GROUP MEMBERS. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6730/MUM/2016 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,72,922/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FS I WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.14,72,922/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT UNACC OUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND / FSI WAS LIABLE TO B E TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PE R THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION O F AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,72,922/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND / FSI CANNOT BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE O F ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVID ENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED 90 EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FA CTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6864/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF THE INS TRUCTION NO- 1916 OF CBDT DATED 11.05.1994 TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF TH E PURCHASE OF GOLD JEWELLERY IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF THE TEL ESCOPING IN RESPECT OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY EVEN THOUGH THE LD. CI T(A) HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED IT UNEXPLAINED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 91 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 12. IN THE CASE OF RUPALI HEMANT MHATRE, THE GROUND S RAISED ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6717/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.7,00,0 00/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED NOTED ON SE IZED DOCUMENT TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) O UGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEL LANT THAT THE RECEIPT NOTED IS OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT FROM SALE OF LAND/FSI AND SHOULD HAVE TREATED THE CREDIT AS E XPLAINED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6718/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 92 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.7,25,0 0,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI REJECTING THE E XPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND / FSI CANNOT BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASI S WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEA LS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSESNOT AC COUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTION FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6719/MUM/2017 1.(A) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.2,30,21,576/- ON RECEI PT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT UNACC OUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND / FSI WAS LIABLE TO B E TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PE R THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,30,21,576/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI CANNOT BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLO WANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPT COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (C)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN 93 THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6861/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6862/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH 94 EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 13. IN THE CASE OF SWASTIK ESTATE, THE GROUNDS RAIS ED ARE SUMMARIZED HEREUNDER:- ITA NO.6724/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.1,44,5 0,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS L IABLE TO THE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS E FFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF R ECEIPT WOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME IS C HARGEABLE TO TAX AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD OF ACCO UNTING. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.3,68,4 2,982/- RELATION TO THE UNEXPLAINED CASH EXPENDITURE INCURR ED ON PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH PAYMENTS ARE INCURRED OUT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED TELESCOPING OF THE UNACCOUNTED RECE IPT AGAINST UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE INCURRED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION OF RS.2,00,0 0,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE 95 SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS L IABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFEC TED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. THE LD. CIT(APPE AL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPT WOULD BE TA XED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS PE R THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. 5. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL ITA NO.6854/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 14. IN THE CASE OF SWASTIK SPACES LIMITED, THE GROU NDS RAISED ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6079/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW,THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE 96 ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6080/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6081/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT 97 AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6082/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6083/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 98 ITA NO.6084/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6153/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ASSESSING THE UNEXPLA INED SALE OF SHOPS OF DURVAS PROJECT IN THE HANDS OF APPELLAN T OF RS.18,91,405/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND THE FACT THAT THE DURVAS PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED BY M/S. SHARP REALTOR, GROUP CONCERN. THE ADDITION, SO MADE IS PRAYED TO BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,39,50,345/- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ER RED IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,39,50,345/- ON ACCOU NT OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPT ED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE. 99 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6154/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ASSESSING THE UNEXPLA INED SALE OF SHOPS OF DURVAS PROJECT IN THE HANDS OF APPELLAN T OF RS.35,00,460/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND THE FACT THAT THE DURVAS PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED BY M/S. SHARP REALTOR, GROUP CONCERN. THE ADDITION, SO MADE IS PRAYED TO BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.56,99,16,818/- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED LOAN S NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ER RED IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION OF RS.56,99,16,818/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPT ED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 6155/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ASSESSING THE UNEXPLA INED SALE OF SHOPS OF DURVAS PROJECT IN THE HANDS OF APPELLAN T OF RS.33,23,750/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND THE FACT THAT THE DURVAS PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED BY M/S. SHARP REALTOR, GROUP CONCERN. THE ADDITION, SO MADE IS PRAYED TO BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.26,90,09,305/- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED LOAN S NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST 100 SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ER RED IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION OF RS.26,90,09,305/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPT ED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6156/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ASSESSING THE UNEXPLA INED SALE OF SHOPS OF DURVAS PROJECT IN THE HANDS OF APPELLAN T OF RS.34,31,54,153/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE FACT THAT THE DURVAS PR OJECT WAS DEVELOPED BY M/S. SHARP REALTOR, GROUP CONCERN. THE ADDITION, SO MADE IS PRAYED TO BE DIRECTED TO BE DE LETED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,83,16,168/- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ER RED IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,83,16,168/- ON ACCOU NT OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPT ED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6157/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ASSESSING THE INCOME FROM THE SALE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,62,34,750/- ON REC EIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH 101 RECEIPT WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOW ED METHOD. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6158/MUM/2017 1. A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ASSESSING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AMBEGAON LAND OF RS.8,97,91,043/- AS PER THE NOTINGS FOUND ON SEIZED DOCUMENT AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID LAND DOESNT BELONG TO THE APPEL LANT FIRM. THE ADDITION, SO MADE, IS PRAYED TO BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. B) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ASSESSING THE UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AMBEGAON LAND AS PER THE NOTINGS FOUND ON SEIZED DOCUMENT AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS S UFFICIENT SOURCE IN THE FORM OF UNSECURED LOANS TO MAKE INVES TMENT IN SAID LAND. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING TEL ESCOPING OF SUCH UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS WITH THE UNACCOUNTED RECE IPTS AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE IS PRAYED TO BE DI RECTED TO BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ASSESSING THE UNACCOU NTED RECEIPT ON SALE OF LAND (HDIL) OF RS.2,49,27,900/- AS PER THE NOTINGS FOUND ON SEIZED DOCUMENT AS INCOME OF THE A PPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID LAND DO ESNT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT FIRM. THE ADDITION, SO MADE , IS PRAYED TO BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ASSESSING THE UNEXPLA INED EXPENSES AS PER THE ENTRIES FOUND ON THE SEIZED DOC UMENT IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT OF RS.1,44,81,084/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND T HE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINS TO ONE SHRI VIPUL PATIL AND NOT PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION, S MADE I S PRAYED TO BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 102 4. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 15. IN THE CASE OF VIVA SHELTERS, THE GROUNDS RAISE D ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6538/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN THE ASSESSME NT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,06,67,800/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND /F SI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,06,67,800/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FA CTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH 103 RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SE. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSE MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6383/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A)ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT T HE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT,1961 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEN OR ALTER AN Y GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.6539/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 104 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,24,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT PAYABLE TO SUNDRY CREDITOR M/S. SPAN V TRANS PORT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLAN T. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION O F THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 3. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,31,94,624/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND/ F SI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,31,94,624/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATED DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 4. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6540/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN THE ASSESSME NT U/S 105 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.70,00,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND /FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.70,00,000/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGN ORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS L IABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFEC TED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FA CTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SE. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSE MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6541/MUM/2017 106 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,25,00,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RSS.8,25,00,000/- OR RS.1,14,00,000 /- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOW ED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 16. IN THE CASE OF VIVA SWASTIK ASSOCIATES, THE GRO UND RAISED ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6720/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR 107 ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.19,84,000/- WITHOUT CO NSIDERING THE ENTIRE NOTHING OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND MEREL Y ADOPTING PICKING AND CHOOSING THE NOTING SUITABLE T O THEM. THE ADDITION, SO MADE DESERVES DELETING. 3. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.19,84,000/- ON RECEIPT BAS IS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT UNACC OUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND/ FSI WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PE R THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN ADDITION O F AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,84,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND / FSI CANNOT BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE O F ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVID ENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (C)THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATED DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 4. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6721/MUM/2017 108 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION . FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF RS.55,00,000/- BASED ON T HE NOTING ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO M/S. V. S. ASS OCIATES REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAME BELONGS TO DIFFERENT ENTITY VIZ. M/S. V.S. ASSOCIAT ES. THE TRANSACTIONS NOTED ON OTHER SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVE B EEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. A.O. AND CIT(A) AS PER PATE NO. 44 & 45 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER. THE ADDITION, SO MADE DESERVES DELETION. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6722/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ACCEPTING THE RETURN REVISED ON 3 1.10.2015 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.1,96,42,050/- BY REDUCING TH E INCOME OF RS.1,67,76,504/- DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E FILED U/S. 153 ON 11.04.2015. THE REDUCTION IN THE INCOME OF RS.1,67,76,504/- OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED BY THE LD. A.O. AND CIT(A)CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6723/MUM/2017 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE A PPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,59,78,170/- WAS PAID OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND/ FSI IN T HE CASE OF THE PARTNERS / OTHER GROUP CONCERNS AND THUS, THE S OURCE OF INVESTMENT IS EXPLAINED. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIO N OF THE 109 APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,27,41,590/- WAS S TILL PAYABLE AND THEREFORE THERE IS NOT JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING ADDITION. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 17. IN THE CASE OF VIVA SWASTIK DEVELOPERS, THE GRO UNDS RAISED ARE SUMMARIZED HEREUNDER:- ITA NO. 4268/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,60,00,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,60,00,000/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPEND ITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXP ENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT 110 EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FA CTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4267/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS E RRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,20,000/- REPRESENTIN G THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED S NOTED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. T HE ADDITION OF RS.1,20,00,000/- BEING ERRONEOUS IN LA W AND IN FACTS IS PRAYED TO BE DELETED. 3. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,28,82,571/- AND RS.88,00,000/- REPRESENTING TH E UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PURCHASE/DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDIN G A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUC H ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S.251(2) AND HENCE THE SA ME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY AN ADDITI ON OF 111 RS.2,28,82,571/- HOLDING THE SAME TO REPRESENT UNEX PLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69C OF THE ACT. (C) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY AN ADDITI ON OF RS.88,00,000/- HOLDING THE SAME TO REPRESENT UNEXPL AINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69C OF THE ACT. 4. (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEED OF SALE OF LAND / FSI NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS) IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT COULD BE TAXED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN CASH TOWARDS THE PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND / FSI AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGH T TO HAVE HELD THAT SUCH PROVISIONS COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO P AYMENTS NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (C) THE LD. CIT(A)FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND OUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE SAME YEAR IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTED SA LE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE AS PER THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACC OUNTING. 5. (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING PROPER BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING I.E. SET OFF OF EXPENDITURE / INVESTMENTS AGAINST RECEIPTS THEREBY MAKING DOUBLE ADDITIONS, ONCE ON ACCOUNT OF INFLOW OF FUND S AND AGAIN ON ACCOUNT OF OUT FLOW THEREOF. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT TH AT OTHER GROUP CONCERNS AND MEMBERS HAVE SUFFICIENT SOURCE O F FUND TO MAKE PAYMENTS BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPE AL) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE GROUP CASH FLOW SUBMITTED. 112 6. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4269/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,41,80,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWI NG CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,41,80,000/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPEND ITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXP ENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FA CTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD 113 NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4270/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,29,00,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,29,00,000/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPEND ITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXP ENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 114 (D) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FA CTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4271/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,22,00,101/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWI NG CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,22,00,101/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPEND ITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXP ENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE 115 LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FA CTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4272/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.41,80,50,701/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWI NG CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,80,50,701/- ON RECEIPT BASIS I GNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED 116 SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPEND ITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXP ENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (D) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FA CTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH AR E UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROP RIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.4075/MUM/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND ALLOWING SET OF RS.98,81,079/- ON ACCOUNT OF CA SH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.98,81,079/- PAID IN CASH IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 69C/40A( 3) RWS 115BBE OF THE ACT? 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION AND ALLOWING TELESCOPING AND SET OFF TO TH E ASSESSEE AS TELESCOPING COULD NOT BE GIVEN FOR AN EXPENSE WH ICH IS IN THE MODE OF CASH AND NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF T HE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE MAY BE VACATED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.4076/MUM/2017 117 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND ALLOWING SET OF RS.3,25,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,25,00,000/- PAID IN CASH IS NOT RECORDED IN TH E BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 69C/40A( 3) R.W.S 115BBE OF THE ACT? 2. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING T HE ADDITION AND ALLOWING SET OF RS.2,10,86,029/- ON AC COUNT OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,10,86,029/- PAID IN CASH IS NOT RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 69C/40A(3) R.W.S 115BBE OF THE ACT? 3. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN PARTLY DEL ETING THE ADDITION AND ALLOWING SET OF RS.12,25,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH E FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,25,00,000/- PAID IN CASH I S NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH N OT ALLOWABLE U/S 69C/40A(3) R.W.S 115BBWE OF THE ACT? 4. THE LD CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND ALLOWING TELESCOPING OF EXPENSES AND S ET OFF TO THE ASSESSEE AS TELESCOPING COULD NOT BE GIVEN FOR AN EXPENSE WHICH IS IN THE MODE OF CASH AND NOT RECORD ED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT9A)-11, PUNE MAY BE VACATED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.4077/MUM/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND ALLOWING SET OF RS.1,13,82,226/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,13,82,226/- PAID IN CASH IS NOT RECORDED IN TH E BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 69C/40A( 3) R.W.S 115BBE OF THE ACT? 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION AND ALLOWING TELESCOPING AND SET OFF TO TH E ASSESSEE AS TELESCOPING COULD NOT BE GIVEN FOR AN EXPENSE WH ICH IS IN THE MODE OF CASH AND NOT RE 118 3. CORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE MAY BE VACATED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.4078/MUM/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND ALLOWING SET OF RS.1,41,85,943/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,41,85,943/- PAID IN CASH IS NOT RECORDED IN TH E BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 69C/40A( 3) RWS 115BBE OF THE ACT? 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION AND ALLOWING TELESCOPING AND SET OFF TO TH E ASSESSEE AS TELESCOPING COULD NOT BE GIVEN FOR AN EXPENSE WH ICH IS IN THE MODE OF CASH AND NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF T HE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE MAY BE VACATED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY ITA NO.4080/MUM/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND ALLOWING SET OF RS.50,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CA SH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/- PAID IN CASH IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 69C/40A( 3) R.W.S 115BBE OF THE ACT? 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION AND ALLOWING TELESCOPING TO THE ASSESSEE A S TELESCOPING COULD NOT BE GIVEN FOR AN EXPENSE WHICH IS NOT LEGAL. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE MAY BE VACATED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 119 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.4079/MUM/2017 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND ALLOWING SET OF RS.81,22,044/- ON ACCOUNT OF CA SH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.81,22,044/- PAID IN CASH IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 69C/40A( 3) R.W.S 115BBE OF THE ACT? 2 THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION AND ALLOWING TELESCOPING AND SET OFF TO TH E ASSESSEE AS TELESCOPING COULD NOT BE GIVEN FOR AN EXPENSE WH ICH IS IN THE MODE OF CASH AND NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF T HE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-11, PUNE MAY BE VACATED ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 18. IN THE CASE OF VIVA SWASTIK ESTATES, THE GROUND S RAISED ARE SUMMARIZED HEREUNDER:- ITA NO.6731/MUM/2016 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,24,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FS I WITHOUT 120 AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENH ANCING TH INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPT ON SALE OF LAND OF AN AMOU NT OF RS.1,10,00,000/- IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APP ELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED IN THE AM OUNT RECEIVED FROM PRADEEP CHOPRA AND INCLUDED IN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION WOULD RESU LT INTO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT AND THEREFORE, S HOULD HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. 3. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,59,81,773/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE T HE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHAN CING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,59,81,773/- IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND / FSI OF THE PARTNERS/ OTHER GROUP MEMBERS OF THE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AN D DELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 4. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6732/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESS MENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS 121 PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CO NFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT O F RS.25,00,000/- IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED O N SALE OF LAND / FSI IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT RECE IVED FROM PRADEEP CHOPRA AND INCLUDED IN THE UNDISCLOSE D INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HA VE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION WOULD RESULT IN TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT AND THEREFORE, SHOULD H AVE DELETED THE ADDITION. 3. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS I N ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.28,85,300/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF UNACCOUNT ED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WITHOUT AFFORDING A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEME NT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHA NCING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.28,85,300/- IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND / FSI OF THE PARTNERS/ OTHER GROUP MEMBERS OF THE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AN D DELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 4. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6733/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS 122 PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,16,19,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF UNACCO UNTED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WITHOUT AFFORDING A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEME NT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHA NCING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,16,19,000/- IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND / FSI OF THE PARTNERS/ OTHER GROUP MEMBERS OF THE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AN D DELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6734/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 144R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 2. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,88,266/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF UNACCOUN TED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WITHOUT AFFORDING A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEME NT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHA NCING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON ACCOUNT OF 123 UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,88,266/- IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND / FSI OF THE PARTNERS/ OTHER GROUP MEMBERS OF THE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AN D DELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 6735/MUM/2017 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.23,30,321/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF UNACCOUN TED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WITHOUT AFFORDING A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEME NT AS MANDATED U/S 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. (B) THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHA NCING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.23,30,321/- IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID OUT OF THE UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND / FSI OF THE PARTNERS/ OTHER GROUP MEMBERS OF THE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AN D DELETED THE ADDITION MADE. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER, AM END OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. ITA NO.6865/MUM/2017 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 124 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY . ITA NO.6866/MUM/2017 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO T RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U /S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EXPENSE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND CORRELATION BETWEEN SOURCE FUND AN D ITS UTILIZATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW SET O FF OF CASH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 40A(3)/69C R.W.S. 115BBE O F THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND/GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 19. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, THE LD. CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 14 4 R.W.S. 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE A CT), BY OBSERVING THAT FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT THERE OUGHT TO BE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS I N THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING 125 TO THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELON GING TO THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. IT WAS PLEADED THAT COPY OF THE SATISFACTI ON RECORDED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A CLEAR REFERENCE TO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, SEIZED AND BELONGING/PERTA INING TO THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE GR OUP. IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE S HRI DEEPAK SHAH U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING SEARCH AND ADMITTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS 7,25,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS SEIZED DURING SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF TH E ACT IN SWASTIK GROUP OF CASES. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ST ATEMENT ALSO ABUNDANTLY REFLECTS THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION T HAT SHRI DEEPAK SHAH, MAIN PERSON OF THE GROUP, ADMITTED THE ABOVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS SEI ZED AND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, DURING SEARCH ON THE GROUP 126 CASES ON 31/07/2014. IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT VA RIOUS REFERENCES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCRIMINATING DOCU MENTS BELONGING/PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDERS U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT F OR AY 2009-10 TO 2015-16. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GIVEN A C OPY OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND HE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJ ECTION AFTER THAT. IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS T O IF ALL THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO HIM, BUT ONLY PER TAINED TO HIM, TO WHOM THESE DOCUMENTS BELONG TO. THE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER DATA ARE NOT IMMOVABLE PROPE RTY THAT THEY BELONG ONLY TO THE REGISTERED OWNER. THE A SSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND HAS NO PHYSICAL EXISTENCE . THE DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO ITS MEMBERS HAVE TO BE TREAT ED AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THERE IS NO OTHER W AY THE FIRM CAN OWN A PROPERTY. SHRI DEEPAK SHAH HAD ADMIT TED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE COMPUTER SYSTEM SEIZED DU RING THE SEARCH MAINTAINED THE DATA BELONGING TO THE ASS ESSEE AND HAD ALSO DISCLOSED HUGE ADDITIONAL INCOME BELON GING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH. 127 19.1 THE LD. CIT-DR FURTHER PLEADED THAT EVEN IF T HE ASSESSEE STILL PERSISTS IN HIS OBJECTION, IT MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHARES COMMON PREMISES WITH THE OTHER GROUP CONCERNS WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. SO PRACTICALLY IT WAS AS GOOD AS A SEARCH IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. NOT ONLY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND DURING THE SEA RCH, BUT THE SOFT DATA CONTAINING DISCLOSED AS WELL AS UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE MAINT AINED ON THE SAME SYSTEM AND THE DATA BELONGING TO THE AS SESSEE WERE ALSO SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH. SHRI DEEPAK SHA H PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM ADMITTED HUGE UNDISCL OSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH. THUS THERE CANNOT BE A BETTER CASE FOR ISSUE OF A NOTICE US/ 153C OF THE ACT FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA-18 OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER. SO FAR AS, APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS CONCE RNED, WITH RESPECT TO ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLA NT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 26,74,08,400/- IN RELATION TO THE SAL E OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED 128 U/S. 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANC ELLED / DELETED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEV ELOPED A PROJECT AT ALKAPURI. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AMOUNT O N SALE OF FSI. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED HOW THE PURCHASE OF FSI WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE AND HOW THE PROFIT COMPONENT ON SALE OF FSI WAS OFFERED TO TAX. HOWEVER ASSESSEE FAILED TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE. HENCE MULTIPLE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT A DDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE LD. CIT(A) OPI NED THAT EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE REC EIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND HENCE THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADD ED IN TOTAL. THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER T O ADD RS.26,74,08,400/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 142 OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO.2(B) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS CONCERNED WITH RESPECT TO ENHANCING THE INCOME OF T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SALE OF FSI BY AN AMO UNT OF RS. 26,74,08,400/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS LI ABLE TO 129 BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EF FECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. IT WAS PLEADE D THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HELD TH AT AS FAR AS THE CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCERNE D, THE SAME RELATES TO TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE RESULTANT PROFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WI TH RESPECT TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT ADDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE REC EIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECE IVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADDED. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 141 OF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. 19.2. THE LD. CIT-DR WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.2(C ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 COMMENTED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RE CEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AG AINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF 130 SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT E MBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE SAME RELAT ES TO TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE RESULTANT PR OFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE RE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WITH RESPECT TO S UCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT ADDI TIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXPENSES ARE D EBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECEIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSID E THE BOOKS. THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI I S CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADDED. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PA RA 141 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 19.3. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO. 2(D) FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10, THE LD. CIT-DR ASSERTED THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN UPHOLDIN G THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O. WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPE NSES 131 WHICH ARE UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSE S MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. CIT -DR THAT FROM THE RECORD I T IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH AGAINST SALE OF FSI HAS REMAINED O UTSIDE THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THIS WAS A REVENUE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE IN THE CURRENT ASST. YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AN OBJECTION THAT THE GROSS RECE IPTS SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AS HER INCOME; THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THE CLAI M IS UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE. THERE ARE NO DETAILS MADE AVA ILABLE OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH THE APPELLANT WANTS TO CLA IM (II) THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND MAY BE AGAINST PUB LIC POLICY. (III) SECTION 115 BBE PROHIBITS SUCH ALLOWA NCES. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 141 OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER. 20. SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 (GROUND NO.1) IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT-DR PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT WITHO UT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JUR ISDICTION 132 FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMIS ES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VO ID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. IT WAS COMMEN TED THAT THE AO PROVIDED A COPY OF THE SATISFACTION REC ORDED BY HER BEFORE ISSUING OF THE 153C NOTICE. IT MAY BE ME NTIONED HERE THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSEE CASE AND IN THE CA SES OF DEEPAK SHAH ETC WHERE THE SEARCH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED IS ONE AND THE SAME. THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF CASE REC ORDS REQUIRED. IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE AO HAS MAD E A CLEAR REFERENCE TO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS SEIZED AND BEL ONGING/ PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH IN THE GROUP. IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE AO HAS AL SO MADE REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE SHRI DEEPAK SHAH U/S 132(4) DURING SEARCH AND ADMITTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS 7,25,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS SEIZED DURING SEARCH ACTION U/ S 132 IN SWASTIK GROUP OF CASES. THE RELE VANT PART OF THE STATEMENT ALSO ABUNDANTLY REFLECTS THAT THE 133 SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. PLEA WAS A LSO RAISED THAT SHRI DEEPAK SHAH, MAIN PERSON OF THE GR OUP, ADMITTED THE ABOVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, DUR ING SEARCH ON THE GROUP CASES ON 31/07/2014. THE LD. C IT- DR EXPLAINED THAT VARIOUS REFERENCES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS BELONGING/ PERTAINING T O THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 144 R.W.S. 15 3A R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2015-16. A S PER THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GIVEN A COPY OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND HE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTI ON AFTER THAT. IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO IF A LL THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO HIM, BUT ONLY PERTAINED TO HIM, TO WHOM THESE DOCUMENTS BELONG TO. THE DOCUMEN TS AND COMPUTER DATA ARE NOT IMMOVABLE PROPERTY THAT T HEY BELONG ONLY TO THE REGISTERED OWNER.. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND HAS NO PHYSICAL EXISTENCE. THE DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO ITS MEMBERS HAVE TO BE TREAT ED AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THERE IS NO OTHER W AY THE FIRM CAN OWN A PROPERTY. SHRI DEEPAK SHAH HAD ADMIT TED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE COMPUTER SYSTEM SEIZED DU RING 134 THE SEARCH MAINTAINED THE DATA BELONGING TO THE ASS ESSEE AND HAD ALSO DISCLOSED HUGE ADDITIONAL INCOME BELON GING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE STILL PERSISTS IN HIS OBJECTION, IT MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE S HARES COMMON PREMISES WITH THE OTHER GROUP CONCERNS WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. SO PRACTICALLY IT WAS AS GOOD AS A SEARCH IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. NOT ONL Y THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WER E FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, BUT THE SOFT DATA CONTAINING DIS CLOSED AS WELL AS UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WE RE MAINTAINED ON THE SAME SYSTEM AND THE DATA BELONGIN G TO THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH. SH RI DEEPAK SHAH PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM ADMITTED HUGE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH. THUS THERE C ANNOT BE A BETTER CASE FOR ISSUE OF A NOTICE US/ 153C OF THE ACT. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 18 OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. 20.1. SO FAR AS, GROUND NOS. 2 (A) AND 2(B) FOR A. Y 2010-11 IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. C IT 135 (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN MAKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED PURCHASES T O THE TUNE OF RS. 50,00,000/- OUT OF RS. 3,36,34,541/-, W ITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAME AS UNPROVED PURCHASES AND FURTHER CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF UNPROVED PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 50,00,000/ - OUT OF RS. 3,36,34,541/-, AND NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM O F THE APPELLANT TO TAX ONLY CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT D URING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN PURCHAS ES FROM THE PARTIES LISTED AS HAWALA VENDORS BY THE SA LES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. HENCE AN AMOUNT O F RS.3,36,34,541/WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LATER ON IT WAS FOUND THAT PURCHASES ARE FROM THE NOTIFIED PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS INDULGED IN PURCHASE INFLATION AS THERE ARE SOME IN STANCES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH FROM THESE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,00,000/- FOR AY 2010-11. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISA LLOWED 136 PURCHASES TO THIS EXTENT IN ENTIRETY AS THE CASH HA S BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE AND REJECT THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE TO TAX ONLY CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF PROF IT. OUR ATTENTION INVITED TO THE PARAS 46, 47, 48 AND 49 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 20.2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPEC T TO GROUND NO. 3(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PLEADE D THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENH ANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20,38,88,000/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FS I WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AN D HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED A PROJECT AT ALKAPURI. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AMOUNT ON SALE OF F SI. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED HOW THE PURCHASE OF FSI WAS REFL ECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOW TH E PROFIT COMPONENT ON SALE OF FSI WAS OFFERED TO TAX. HOWEVE R ASSESSEE FAILED TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE. HENCE MULTIPL E ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LD. 137 CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT A DDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE LD. CIT(A) OPI NED THAT EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE REC EIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND HENCE THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADD ED IN TOTAL. THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ADD RS.20,38,88,0 00/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WA S INVITED TO PARA 140 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 20.3. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.3(B) FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2010-11, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT (APPE AL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SALE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20,38,88,000/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMIS SION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS LIABLE TO BE TA XED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER TH E REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SO FAR AS THE CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE R ESULTANT PROFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOU NT. THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WITH RESPEC T TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT 138 ADDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXP ENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECEIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAR A 141 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 20.4. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO.3(C) FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11, IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RE CEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AG AINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT E MBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD, BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATIO N OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. IT WAS COMMENTED THAT SO FAR AS CA SH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELA TES TO TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE RESULTANT PR OFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE RE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WITH RESPECT TO S UCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT ADDI TIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXPENSES ARE D EBITED 139 IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECEIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSID E THE BOOKS. THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI I S CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADDED. 20.5. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.3(D) FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT (APPE ALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION O F THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O. WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECT ION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOK S (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC.40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE UNACCOUNTED A ND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS FO R ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT FROM THE FACTS THAT THE AMOUNT REC EIVED IN CASH AGAINST SALE OF FSI HAS REMAINED OUTSIDE THE B OOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THIS WAS A R EVENUE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE IN THE CURRENT ASST. YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AN OBJECTION THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOU LD NOT BE TAXED AS HER INCOME; THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED SH OULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THE CLAIM IS UNACCEPTABLE B ECAUSE THERE ARE NO DETAILS MADE AVAILABLE OF THE EXPENDIT URE 140 WHICH THE APPELLANT WANTS TO CLAIM (II) THE EXPENDI TURE INCURRED IN CASH CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 40A(3) AND MAY BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. (I II) SECTION 115 BBE PROHIBITS SUCH ALLOWANCES. 21. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO. 1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE LD. CI T (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE. A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMIS ES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VO ID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PROVIDED A COPY OF T HE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY HER BEFORE ISSUING OF THE 153C NOTICE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSEE CASE AND IN THE CASES OF DEEPAK SHAH ETC W HERE THE SEARCH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED IS ONE AND THE SAME. THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF CASE RECORDS REQUIRED. A STRONG PLEA WAS 141 RAISED THAT IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE AO HAS MA DE A CLEAR REFERENCE TO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS SEIZED A ND BELONGING/ PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH IN THE GROUP. IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE AO HAS ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE S HRI DEEPAK SHAH U/S 132(4) DURING SEARCH AND ADMITTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS 7,25,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS SE IZED DURING SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 IN SWASTIK GROUP OF CA SES. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STATEMENT ALSO ABUNDANTLY REFLECTS THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE.IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT SHRI DEEPAK SHAH, MAIN PE RSON OF THE GROUP, ADMITTED THE ABOVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND BELONGING TO THE ASSESS EE, DURING SEARCH ON THE GROUP CASES ON 31/07/2014. FUR THER, VARIOUS REFERENCES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCRIMINAT ING DOCUMENTS BELONGING/ PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 153C O F THE ACT FOR AY 2009- 10 TO 2015-16. 21.1. WITH RESPECT TO GROUNDS NO.2(A) AND 2(B) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADE D THAT 142 THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN MAKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED PURCH ASES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,71,57,700/- OUT OF RS. 12,72,5 0,083/-, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAME AS UNPROVED PURCHASES. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DURING T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HA D MADE CERTAIN PURCHASES FROM THE PARTIES LISTED AS H AWALA VENDORS BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE W AS ASKED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. HO WEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. HENCE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12,72,50,083/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LATER ON IT WAS FOUND THAT PURCHASES OF RS.5,24,88,378/- ONLY ARE FROM THE NOT IFIED PARTIES AND THE REMAINING ARE REGULAR PURCHASES WHI CH MIGHT BE ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS INDULGED IN PURCHASE INFLATION AS THERE ARE SOME IN STANCES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH FROM THESE PARTIES. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,71,57,700/- FOR AN 2011-12. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED PURCHASES TO THIS EXTENT IN ENTIRETY AS THE CASH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE AND REJECT T HE 143 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO TAX ONLY CERTAIN PERC ENTAGE OF PROFIT. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGES 46 TO 4 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 21.2. SO FAR AS, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, FOR GROU ND NOS. 3(A) AND 3(B) IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THA T THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ERRED IN ENHANC ING THE INCOME HOLDING THAT THE ON-MONEY RECEIPTS OF RS . 3,08,82,227/- IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH ON-MONEY. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT C OULD BE TAXED. IT WAS COMMENTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD FLATS AND RECEIVED CASH COMPONENT ON SALE OF FLATS IN DUR VAS PROJECT. THE TOTAL OF AGREEMENT VALUE IS RS.79,67,4 4,812/- AND TOTAL OF FLAT COST IS RS.86,67,30,436/-. THE DI FFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 6,99,85,623/- IS RECEIVED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON MONEY. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EX PLAIN THE RECEIPT OF RS.6,99,85,623/- HENCE THE AMOUNT WA S ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING T HE 144 REMAND PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT RS.3,91,03,404/WAS RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,08,82,227/- WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE CASH COMPONENT OF RS.3,08,82,227/- AND REJECTED THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE OF ADDITION OF ONLY A% OF THE ON MO NEY RECEIVED. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT HE HAD INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAS BE EN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND ALMOST ALL THE LEGALLY PE RMISSIBLE EXPENSES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS B OOKS AND ONLY THE CASH COMPONENT RECEIVED ON SALE CONSIDERATION WAS KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. OUR ATTE NTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 62 TO 65 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 21.3. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO. 4 (A) FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCO ME OF THE APPELLANT BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 22,70,77,755/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDIN G A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUC H ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AND HENCE THE S AME 145 IS PRAYED TO BE CANCELLED / DELETED. IT WAS COMMENT ED THAT MULTIPLE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHI NG BUT ADDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE LD. CIT(A) OPINED THAT EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECEIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND HENCE T HE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CLEARLY L IABLE TO BE ADDED IN TOTAL. THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO A DD RS.22,70,77,755/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 142 OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER. 21.4. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO.4(B) FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SA LE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 22,70,77,755/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CON VEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT AS FAR AS T HE CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELA TES TO TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE RESULTANT PR OFIT 146 FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE RE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WITH RESPECT TO S UCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT ADDI TIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXPENSES ARE D EBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECEIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSID E THE BOOKS. THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI I S CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADDED. 21.5. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.4(C) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS T HE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHO UT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEA LS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HELD THAT AS FAR AS THE CASH RE CEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO 147 TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE RESULTANT PR OFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE RE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WITH RESPECT TO S UCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT ADDI TIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXPENSES ARE D EBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECEIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSID E THE BOOKS. THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI I S CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADDED. 21.6. SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 4(D) FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2011-12, IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ERRED IN LAW AN D IN FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF TH E LD. A.O. WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) . PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN R ELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEAS E BE HELD SO AND APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. IT WAS COMMENTED T HAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH AGAINST SALE OF FSI HAS REMAINED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF THE 148 ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THIS WAS A REVEN UE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE IN THE CURRENT ASST. YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AN OBJECTION THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOU LD NOT BE TAXED AS HER INCOME, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED SH OULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THE CLAIM IS UNACCEPTABLE B ECAUSE THERE ARE NO DETAILS MADE AVAILABLE OF THE EXPENDIT URE WHICH THE APPELLANT WANTS TO CLAIM (II) THE EXPENDI TURE INCURRED IN CASH CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 40A(3) AND MAY BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. (I II) SECTION 115 BBE PROHIBITS SUCH ALLOWANCES. 22. IDENTICAL IS THE ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO GROU ND NO.1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S 153C OF TH E ACT WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION BY PLEADING THA T FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153 C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. 149 22.1. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.2 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13, ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED I NCOME OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL; DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION AND DIWALI EXPEN SE RS.3,94,500/THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE ARE NOT SUPPOR TED BY ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT / EVIDENCES FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S 132. THESE ADDITIONS AR E PRAYED TO BE HELD AS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF ASSESSME NTS U/S 153A OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 AND ARE PRAYED TO BE DELETED. IT WAS PLEADED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED DONATION AND DIWALI EXPENSES OF RS.3,94,500/- WHICH WAS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE FROM P&L ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. HOW EVER ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. HENC E AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,94,500/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FAILED TO ARGUE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. HENC E THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 71 OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. 22.2. SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT DIWALI EX PENSE 150 OF RS. 1,04,500/- WERE NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND TREATING THE SAME AS NOT PRESSED, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE EXPENSE . THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THESE EXPENSES A S ALLOWABLE. 22.3. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.4(A), IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- IN RELATION TO TH E SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANC ELLED / DELETED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEV ELOPED A PROJECT AT ALKAPURI. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AMOUNT O N SALE OF FSI. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED HOW THE PURCHASE OF FSI WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE AND HOW THE PROFIT COMPONENT ON SALE OF FSI WAS OFFERED TO TAX. HOWEVER ASSESSEE FAILED TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE. HENCE MULTIPLE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT A DDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE LD. CIT(A) OPI NED THAT EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE REC EIPTS 151 ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND HENCE THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADD ED IN TOTAL. THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ADD RS. 1,00,00,0 00/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) RE JECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTION WIT H ANIL MEHTA DID NOT MATERIALIZE AS THE CASH RECEIVED HAS BEEN COUNTED IN THE CASH FLOW CHART. OUR ATTENTION WAS I NVITED TO PARA 142 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 22.4. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO. 4(B) FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2012-13, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT (APP EAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SALE OF FSI BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISS ION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS LIABLE TO BE TA XED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EFFECTED AS PER TH E REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. IT WAS COMMENTED THAT TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), HELD THAT AS F AR AS THE CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE R ESULTANT PROFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOU NT. THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WITH RESPEC T TO 152 SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT ADDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXP ENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECEIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON S ALE OF FSI IS CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADDED. OUR ATTENTION WA S INVITED TO PARA 141 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 22.5. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO. 4(C) FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2012-13, IS CONCERNED, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) FURTHER ERRED I N LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS T HE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHO UT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEA LS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. IT WAS COMMENTED THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT AS FAR AS THE CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCERNE D, THE SAME RELATES TO TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE RESULTANT PROFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L 153 ACCOUNT. THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WI TH RESPECT TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASE IS NOTHING B UT ADDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE ' EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECE11. KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CLEA RLY LIABLE TO BE ADDED. 22.6. WITH RESPECT GROUND NO.4(D) FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS I N UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O . WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT A CCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPE NSES WHICH ARE UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSE S MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IT IS CLE AR FROM THE FACTS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH AGAINST SALE OF FSI HAS REMAINED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THIS WAS A REVENUE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE IN THE CURRENT ASST. YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AN OBJEC TION 154 THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AS HER INCOME; THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A DED UCTION. THE CLAIM IS UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE (I) THERE ARE NO DETAILS MADE AVAILABLE OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH THE APPELLA NT WANTS TO CLAIM (II) THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CAS H CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND MAY BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. (III) SECTION115 BBE PROHIBI TS SUCH ALLOWANCES. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 141 O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 23. ON GROUND NO.1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153C WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 153C THERE OUGHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEARCH IN THE PREMIS ES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VO ID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. IT WAS POINTE D OUT THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PROVIDED A COPY OF T HE 155 SATISFACTION RECORDED BY HER BEFORE ISSUING OF THE 153C NOTICE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSEE CASE AND IN THE CASES OF DEEPAK SHAH ETC W HERE THE SEARCH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED IS ONE AND THE SAME. THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF CASE RECORDS REQUIRED. PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE AO HAS MA DE A CLEAR REFERENCE TO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS SEIZED A ND BELONGING/ PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH IN THE GROUP. IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE AO HAS ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE S HRI DEEPAK SHAH U/S 132(4) DURING SEARCH AND ADMITTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS 7,25,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS S EIZED DURING SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 IN SWASTIK GROUP OF CA SES. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STATEMENT ALSO ABUNDANTLY REFLECTS THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. I T IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT SHRI DEEPAK SHAH, MAIN PE RSON OF THE GROUP, ADMITTED THE ABOVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND BELONGING TO THE ASSESS EE, DURING SEARCH ON THE GROUP CASES ON 31/07/2014. FUR THER, VARIOUS REFERENCES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCRIMINAT ING 156 DOCUMENTS BELONGING/ PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 153C O F THE ACT FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2015-16. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALS O GIVEN A COPY OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND HE HAS NOT RAIS ED ANY OBJECTION AFTER THAT. IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EX PLAIN AS TO IF ALL THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO HIM, B UT ONLY PERTAINED TO HIM, TO WHOM THESE DOCUMENTS BELONG TO . THE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER DATA ARE NOT IMMOVABLE PROPE RTY THAT THEY BELONG ONLY TO THE REGISTERED OWNER. THE A SSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND HAS NO PHYSICAL EXISTENCE . THE DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO ITS MEMBERS HAVE TO BE TREAT ED AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THERE IS NO OTHER W AY THE FIRM CAN OWN A PROPERTY. SHRI DEEPAK SHAH HAD ADMIT TED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE COMPUTER SYSTEM SEIZED DU RING THE SEARCH MAINTAINED THE DATA BELONGING TO THE ASS ESSEE AND HAD ALSO DISCLOSED HUGE ADDITIONAL INCOME BELON GING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE STILL PERSISTS IN HIS OBJECTION, IT MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHAR ES COMMON PREMISES WITH THE OTHER GROUP CONCERNS WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. SO PRACTICALLY IT WAS 157 AS GOOD AS A SEARCH IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. NOT ONL Y THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WER E FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, BUT THE SOFT DATA CONTAINING DIS CLOSED AS WELL AS UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WE RE MAINTAINED ON THE SAME SYSTEM AND THE DATA BELONGIN G TO THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH. SH RI DEEPAK SHAH PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM ADMITTED HUGE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH. THUS THERE C ANNOT BE A BETTER CASE FOR ISSUE OF A NOTICE US/ 153C. (T HIS ISSUE IS DISCUSSED IN PARA 18 OF THE CIT(A)'S APPEAL ORDE R.) 23.1. SO FAR ASGROUND NO. 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN THE ADDITIONS TO THE RE TURNED INCOME OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION AN D DIWALI EXPENSES RS. 10,48,310/- THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT / EVIDENCES FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S 132. THESE ADDITIONS ARE PRAYED TO BE HELD AS BEYOND THE 158 PURVIEW OF ASSESSMENTS U/S 153A OF THE I. T. ACT 19 61 AND ARE PRAYED TO BE DELETED. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBI TED DONATION AND DIWALI EXPENSES OF RS. 10,48,310/- WHI CH WAS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE FROM P&L ACCOUNT. ASSE SSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM WITH SUPPORTING DOCU MENTS. HOWEVER ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLA IM. HENCE AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,48,310/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FAILED TO ARGUE IN SUPPORT OF HI S CLAIM. HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE ON THIS GROUND. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 7 1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 23.2. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO.3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF RS. 90,00,000/- TREATING THE RECEIP TS AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FACT ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO H AVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE. IT WAS COMMENTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 159 RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.90,00,000/- AND PAID RS.1,65,00,000/- AS EVIDENT FROM THE CRZ(COASTAL REGULATORY ZONE) STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS UTILIZED FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT AND WHETHER THE RECEIPTS WERE OFFERED FOR TAX AND WHETH ER THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SA ME WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. HENCE AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,55,00,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION NOTED ON SEIZED DOCU MENTS ARE INCORPORATED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH P ROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SAME AMOUNT IN C ASH AND THE RECEIPTS ARE ALSO NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO NOT OFFERED FOR T AX. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI MAY BE TREATED AS THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.90,00,000/-. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 77,78 AND 79 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 160 23.3. IDENTICALLY FOR GROUND NO. 4 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEA L) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DIWALI EXPENSE OF RS. 5,96,310/- BY NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND TREATING THE SAME AS NOT PRESSED, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE EXPENSE. 23.4. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO. 5(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2013-14, IS CONCERNED, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), ERRED IN LAW A ND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY A N AMOUNT OF RS. 21,71,58,423/- IN RELATION TO THE SAL E OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANC ELLED / DELETED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DE VELOPED A PROJECT AT ALKAPURI. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AMOUNT O N SALE OF FSI. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED HOW THE PURCHSE OF F SI WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOW THE PROFIT COMPONENT ON SALE OF FSI WAS OFFERED TO TAX. HOWEVER ASSESSEE FAILED TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE. HENCE MULTIPLE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT A DDITIONAL 161 PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE LD. CIT(A) OPI NED THAT EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE REC EIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND HENCE THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADD ED IN TOTAL. THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AG TO ADD RS.21,71,58,4 23/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 142 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 23.5. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.5(B) FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2013-14, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (AP PEAL) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SALE OF FSI BY AN AMO UNT OF RS. 21,71,58,423/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS L IABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EF FECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. IT WAS POINTE D OUT THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HE LD THAT AS FAR AS THE CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCE RNED, THE SAME RELATES TO TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE RESULTANT PROFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WI TH RESPECT TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING 162 BUT ADDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE REC EIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECE IVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADDED. 23.6. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO.5(C) FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2013-14, IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) FURTHER ERRED I N LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHANCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS T HE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAXED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHO UT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES). THE LD. CIT (APPEA LS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE CONCLUS ION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL ), WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT AS FAR AS THE CASH RECEIV ED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO TRANSACTIO NS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE RESULTANT PROFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THERE CANNOT BE ANY 163 FURTHER EXPENDITURE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH TRANSACTIO NS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT ADDITIONAL PROFIT EARN ED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECEIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS . THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CLEARLY L IABLE TO BE ADDED. 23.7. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.5(D) FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2013-14, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEA LS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION O F THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A.O. WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECT ION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOK S (UNACCOUNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC. 40A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE UNACCOUNTED A ND IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD SO AND APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS FO R ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS THAT TH E AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH AGAINST SALE OF FSI HAS REMAINED O UTSIDE THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THIS WAS A REVENUE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE IN THE CURRENT ASST. YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AN OBJECTION THAT THE GROSS RECE IPTS 164 SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AS HER INCOME; THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THE CLAI M IS UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE (I) THERE ARE NO DETAILS MADE AVAILABLE OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH THE APPELLANT WA NTS TO CLAIM (II) THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND MAY BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. (III) SECTION 115 BBE PROHIB ITS SUCH ALLOWANCES. 24. SO FAR AS, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 (GROUND NO.1) IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 14 4 R.W.S. 1530 WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION. FOR ASSUM ING VALID JURISDICTION FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 1530 THERE OU GHT TO BE A SEIZURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN THE SEAR CH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE APPEL LANT IS FOUND, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE IS PRAYED TO BE HELD AS VOID AND INVALID DESERVING TO BE QUASHED. IN FUR THER REPLY, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R PROVIDED A COPY OF THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY HER BEFORE I SSUING OF 165 THE 153C NOTICE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSEE CASE AND IN THE CASES OF DEEPAK SHAH E TC WHERE THE SEARCH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED IS ONE AND THE SAME. THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF CASE RECORDS REQUIRED. IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE AO HAS MADE A CLEAR REFERENC E TO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS SEIZED AND BELONGING/ PERTA INING TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE GRO UP. PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE AO HAS ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE S HRI DEEPAK SHAH U/S 132(4) DURING SEARCH AND ADMITTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS 7,25,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS SE IZED DURING SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 IN SWASTIK GROUP OF CA SES. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STATEMENT ALSO ABUNDANTLY REFLECTS THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. I T WAS TIME AND AGAIN CONTENDED THAT SHRI DEEPAK SHAH, MAI N PERSON OF THE GROUP, ADMITTED THE ABOVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, DURING SEARCH ON THE GROUP CASES ON 31/07/2014. FURTHER, VARIOUS REFERENCES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS BELONGING/ PERTAININ G TO 166 THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 144 R.W.S . 153A R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT FOR AY 2009-10 TO 2015-16. T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GIVEN A COPY OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND HE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION AFTER THAT. IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO IF ALL THE ABOVE DOCUMENT S DID NOT BELONG TO HIM, BUT ONLY PERTAINED TO HIM, TO WHOM T HESE DOCUMENTS BELONG TO. THE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER DAT A ARE NOT IMMOVABLE PROPERTY THAT THEY BELONG ONLY TO THE REGISTERED OWNER. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIR M AND HAS NO PHYSICAL EXISTENCE. THE DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO ITS MEMBERS HAVE TO BE TREATED AS BELONGING TO THE ASSE SSEE FIRM. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THE FIRM CAN OWN A PROP ERTY. SHRI DEEPAK SHAH HAD ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE COMPUTER SYSTEM SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH MAINTAINED THE DATA BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAD ALSO DISCLOS ED HUGE ADDITIONAL INCOME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH. TIME AND AGAI N THE LD. CIT-DR REPEATED THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE STILL PERSISTS IN HIS OBJECTION, IT MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO MENTION T HAT THE ASSESSEE SHARES COMMON PREMISES WITH THE OTHER GROU P CONCERNS WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. SO 167 PRACTICALLY IT WAS AS GOOD AS A SEARCH IN THE ASSES SEE'S CASE. NOT ONLY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, BUT THE SOFT DATA CONTAINING DISCLOSED AS WELL AS UNDISCLOSED TRANSAC TIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE MAINTAINED ON THE SAME SYSTEM AND THE DATA BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO SEIZED DUR ING THE SEARCH. SHRI DEEPAK SHAH PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT F IRM ADMITTED HUGE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE SEAR CH. THUS THERE CANNOT BE A BETTER CASE FOR ISSUE OF A N OTICE US/ 153C. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 18 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 24.1. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO- 2(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2014-15, IS CONCERNED, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), ERRED IN LAW A ND IN FACTS IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY A N AMOUNT OF RS. 7,64,73,407/- IN RELATION TO THE SALE OF LAND / FSI WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT AS MANDATED U/S. 251(2) AND HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO BE CANC ELLED / DELETED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEVELO PED A 168 PROJECT AT ALKAPURI. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AMOUNT O N SALE OF FSI. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED HOW THE PURCHASE OF FSI WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE AND HOW THE PROFIT COMPONENT ON SALE OF FSI WAS OFFERED TO TAX. HOWEVER ASSESSEE FAILED TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE. HENCE MULTIPLE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT A DDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE LD. CIT(A) OPI NED THAT EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE REC EIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND HENCE THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADD ED IN TOTAL. THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ADD RS. 7,64,73,4 07/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 24.2. IDENTICALLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, (GROUND NO.2(B)), IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, FURTHER, ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME O F THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM THE SALE OF FSI BY A N AMOUNT OF RS. 7,64,73,407/- ON RECEIPT BASIS IGNORI NG THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH RECEIPT WAS L IABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONVEYANCE WAS EF FECTED AS PER THE REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD. IT WAS POINT ED OUT 169 THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HELD THAT AS FAR AS THE CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE RESULTANT PROFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE RE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WITH RESPECT TO S UCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT ADDI TIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXPENSES ARE D EBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECEIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSID E THE BOOKS. THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI I S CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADDED. (THIS ISSUE IS DISCUSSED IN PAR A NO. 141 OF THE LD.CIT(A)'S ORDER). 24.3. IDENTICALLY, WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO. 2(C) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD . CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTI NG THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENHA NCED SALE RECEIPTS TOWARDS THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAX ED ON GROSS RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPEND ITURE THERE AGAINST DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF EXP ENSES INCURRED OUT OF SUCH PROCEEDS (UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ). THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS COULD BE TAXED AS AGAINST 170 TAXATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. IT WAS EXPLAINED TH AT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HELD THAT AS FAR AS THE C ASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELA TES TO TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED AND THE RESULTANT PR OFIT FROM THE CHEQUE PART BOOKED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE RE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE WITH RESPECT TO S UCH TRANSACTIONS. THE CASH RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT ADDI TIONAL PROFIT EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE EXPENSES ARE D EBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT THE RECEIPTS ARE KEPT OUTSID E THE BOOKS. THE AMOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF FSI I S CLEARLY LIABLE TO BE ADDED. 24.4. IDENTICAL ARGUMENT WAS REPEATED FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2014-15 WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO. 2(D) BY CON TENDING THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ER RED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE FIN DINGS OF THE LD. A.O. WITH RESPECT TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS (UNACCO UNTED CASH EXPENSES) BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4 0A(3). PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN R ELATION TO THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE UNACCOUNTED AND IT MAY PLEAS E BE HELD SO AND APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE 171 EXPENSES MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED. IT WAS PLEADED TH AT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CA SH AGAINST SALE OF FSI HAS REMAINED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THIS WAS A REVEN UE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE IN THE CURRENT ASST. YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AN OBJECTION THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOU LD NOT BE TAXED AS HER INCOME; THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED SH OULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THE CLAIM IS UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE(II) THERE ARE NO DETAILS MADE AVAILABLE OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH THE APPELLANT WANTS TO CLAIM (II) THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS P ER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND MAY BE AGAINST PUB LIC POLICY. (III) SECTION115 BBE PROHIBITS SUCH ALLOWAN CES (THIS ISSUE IS DISCUSSED IN PARA. 141 OF THE CIT(A)'S APP EAL ORDER.) 25. WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, WE NOTE THAT IDENTICAL ARE THE GROUNDS IN ALL THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS FOR WHICH SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED FROM BOTH SIDES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED SYNOPSIS/WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT BEING REPE ATED HERE, BEING MATTER OF RECORD. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUM ENT, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUFFICIENT AND REASO NABLE 172 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD/SUBSTANTIATING THE CASES WERE NOT PROVIDED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL A S BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL). OUR ATTENT ION WAS INVITED TO VARIOUS CASE LAWS WHICH ARE ALSO AVA ILABLE ON RECORD. 26. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IF THE OB SERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, LEADING TO ADDITION M ADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY TH E LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND AN ALYZED, THE FACTS, IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE A CTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON SWASTIK GROUP ON 31/07/2014. THERE A RE CERTAIN ISSUES, WHICH ARE COMMON TO ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THERE ARE CERTAIN ISSUES WHICH ARE SPECIFIC TO THE PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR. BROADLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. AS PER THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES/SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ISSUED BY THE LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER TO SUBMIT NECESSARY DETAILS IN SPITE OF OPP ORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. DETAILED DISCUSSION HAS B EEN 173 MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, THE SAME I S NOT BEING REPEATED, BEING MATTER OF RECORD. THE ASSESSE E ALSO FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), WHICH WAS OBJECTED TO BY TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE GRUDGE OF THE REVENUE IS THA T IN SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FUR NISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) AS WELL AS BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE LAST SUCH ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUG HT ON 16/08/2015 FOR THE REASONS THAT DUE TO CONTINUOUS HOLIDAYS, THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE READY BY THE NEX T DATE GIVEN BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS NOTED THA T EVEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SILENT AS TO WHY THIS ADJOURNME NT REQUEST WAS REJECTED. EVEN IDENTICAL OBSERVATION HA S BEEN MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER (FOR READY REFERENCE THE CASE OF DEEPAK PURSHOTTAM SHAH, PARA-8). THE OBSERVATION MA DE THEREIN IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE :- 8.THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SILENT AS TO WHY THIS AD JOURNMENT REQUEST WAS REJECTED. THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AS TO WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS EVEN INFORMED OF REJECTION OF HIS REQUEST FOR FURTHER TIME. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE SEARCH IN THE APPELLANTS CASE HAD THROWN UP COMPLEX NUMEROUS ISSUES, THE MATERIAL TO BE SCRUTIN IZED WAS VOLUMINOUS AND THE AFFAIRS OF THE GROUP WERE NOT W ELL ORGANIZED. HENCE THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE UNREASONABLE. IT IS MENTIONED IN T HE 174 ASSESSING OFFICERS REPORT THAT AFTER THE SEARCH TH E APPELLANT HAD ALMOST 18 MONTHS TO PREPARE HIMSELF, THEREFORE REQUEST FOR FURTHER TIME WAS UNJUSTIFIED. BUT THEN THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE DEPARTMENTAL MACHINERY ALSO HAD THE SAME TIME TO MAKE ENQUIRIES AND SORT OUT THE ISSUES. IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THIS TIME SUFFICIENT TO SCRUTINIZE THE S EIZED MATERIAL, MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND PASS A WELL REASONED ORDER. MOST OF THE ADDITION SIN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER ARE MADE ON THE SOLE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN. THERE IS HARDLY AND SCRUTINY OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THE SAME 18 MONTHS ENOUGH TO MAKE ENQUIRIES OR SCRUTINIZE TH E SEIZED MATERIAL IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD PASS SUCH A CASUAL ASST BECAUSE IT IS SOMEBODY ELSE S MONEY THAT WAS AT THE STAKE. THE APPELLANT COULD NO T HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS NOTICE IN THE SAME CASUAL MANNER. 9. THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS CONTAIN HIGH PITCHED ADDITIONS , DUPLICATE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND ALSO CONTAIN ADDITIONS ON ACCO UNT OF INCOME PERTAINING TO OTHER PERSONS. AS AGAINST THE TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.1353.17 CRORES IN THE SIX ASS ESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS ASKED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE ADD ITIONS TO THE EXTENT OF TOTAL 157.43 CRORE ONLY. THUS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HERSELF HAS SUGGESTED DELETION OF ABOUT 90% OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT. WHEN THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE SO EVIDENTLY AND ADMITTEDLY EITHER INCORRECT OR HIGH P ITCHED, IT WILL BE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE IF ONE DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO SET RIGHT THE FACTS AND DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERIT CONSIDERI NG THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. 10. ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL MAY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BE ACTUALLY DUTY OF THE APPELLATE AUT HORITY WHEN SUCH MATERIAL IS REQUIRED OR RATHER BECOMES ES SENTIAL TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE CASES WERE CENTRALIZED TO CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE, VIDE ORDER UNDER 175 SECTION 127 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER. EVEN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED A FINDING THAT SHOW-CAUS E NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11/07/2016 AND THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SEARCHED ON 31/07/201 4, THUS, THE ASSESSEES WERE HAVING SUFFICIENT TIME TO GATHER THE DETAILS/TO FILE SUBMISSIONS. FROM THE ABOVE F ACTUAL FINDING RECORDED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT IS CLEAR THAT EVEN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MENTION ABOUT REJECTION OF ADJOURNMENT REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESS EE AND ALSO THERE IS NO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVE R INFORMED ABOUT THE REQUEST OF REJECTION AND IN THE IMPUGNED CASES, THERE ARE COMPLEX ISSUES AND THE VOLUMINOUS MATERIAL WAS TO BE SCRUTINIZED. IT IS FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE UNREASONABLE. BEFORE US ALSO, THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITIES, THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE NECESS ARY DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CASES. EVEN IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDERS AND ALSO IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER HIMSELF MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN HI GH 176 PITCHED ADDITION/DUPLICATE ADDITIONS OF THE SAME AM OUNT IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND ALSO CERTAIN ADDITIO NS ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME PERTAINING TO OTHER PERSONS. SO FAR AS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE CONCERNED, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ITSELF WAS IS SUED ON 11/07/2016, HOW A REPLY CAN BE EXPECTED WITHIN N O TIME FROM THE ASSESSEES. HOWEVER, FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE FRAMED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT MEANING THEREBY THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED TO M AKE AN EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER. BEFORE US, THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE IS THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PRO VIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER ARGUMENT, RAISED BEFORE US, O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IS THAT THE RELIEF WHICH WAS GRANT ED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EAL) MAY BE UPHELD AND THE RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT GRANTED, FOR WHICH THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PU T TO FURTHER HARDSHIP. ADMITTEDLY, THE RECORD WAS VOLUMI NOUS AND SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSE ES AFTER ISSUANCE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, BY THE REVENUE, THER EFORE, 177 THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE REPLY/OTHER DETA ILS AS DESIRED BY THE REVENUE. AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS A DELAY IN ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BY THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER ALSO. SO FAR AS, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PART RELIEF WHI CH WAS GRANTED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TO THE AS SESSEE, MAY BE SUSTAINED AND FOR THE REMAINING PORTION WHIC H WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE MAY BE SENT BACK TO TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, IS CONCE RNED, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSITION OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECAUSE IF THE MATTER IS TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH T HEN IT HAS TO BE ADJUDICATED IN TOTO AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE PERMITTED TO PICK AND CHOOSE. EVEN AS PER THE MANDATE OF ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ONLY DUE TAXES HAS TO BE LEVIED/COLLECTED. THUS, IN ALL FAIRNESS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATUR AL JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVI DENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF THEIR/ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER, CONSEQUENTLY, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RE MAND ALL 178 THESE APPEALS (THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE REVEN UE) TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJ UDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE BE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD. THUS, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AS WELL AS OF TH E REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. FINALLY, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/11/2018. SD/- (N.K. PRADHAN) SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $%& /VICE PRESIDENT ( ) MUMBAI; 0 DATED : 28/11/2018 THIRUMALESH, SR. P.S. & F{X~{T? P.S/. $. . , '()*+,+-) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 123 / THE APPELLANT 2. 423 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 5 5 ( 6' , ( 1 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 5 5 ( 6' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 8#9 $'$ , 5 1+ 1 , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. :% ;) / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, $/ (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI