SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN, MUMBAI V. DY. CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4387/MUM/2018

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for various assessment years from 2008-09 to 2014-15. The appeals were consolidated due to common grounds involving the legality of assessments made under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation. The main issues revolved around the validity of the assessments, the treatment of unexplained cash credits, and the handling of unsecured loans. The tribunal examined whether the assessments were based on incriminating material specific to the assessee and whether the additions made were justified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123692 (ITAT-undefined)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd vs CIT, CIT vs Anil Kumar Bhatia
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Capital expenditure; Liquidation
• Section: 68; 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A; 143(1); 143(2); 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/MUM/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2014-15 Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanthan, Vishwam, 8/B, Postal Colony, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Vs. Dy. CIT. CC-5(2), Room No. 1908, 19 th floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. ADJPV 4912 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Nilesh Joshi Revenue by : Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29/05/2023 Date of pronouncement : 31/05/2023 ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the assessee are directed against separate orders, each dated 02.02.2018, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2008-09 to assessment year 2014-15 respectively. As common grounds of appeal are involved, therefore, these appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. These appeals have been filed with delay of 58 days. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee drawn our attention to the application of the contention of delay for fili the assessee. In the application for con assessee has mainly submitted that he was not well and suffering from mental depression, treated for two years, s Manjit Singh Palaned, of the prescription issued by of medical reasons and evidence that there is a sufficient and bonafide cause for delay in filing the appeal, hence the delay are admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a director of ‘M/s Aanjaneya Lifecare Labs Ltd. (DDLL),] liquidation proceedings. of manufacturing of proprietorship concern action u/s 132(1) of the Income was carried out in the case of group concerns on 24.09.2013. issued and served upon the to 2014-15,asking the assessee to file returns of income for relevant Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 These appeals have been filed with delay of 58 days. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee drawn our attention to the application of the contention of delay for filing appeals and the affidavit filed by the assessee. In the application for condonation of the delay assessee has mainly submitted that he was not well and suffering depression, anxiety and panic attacks wo years, since October 2016, under guidance Palaned, MD. The assessee also furnished a photocopy of the prescription issued by ‘the doctor’ from time to time. In view and evidences enclosed ,we are of the opinion a sufficient and bonafide cause for delay in filing the the delay of 58 days is condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a M/s Aanjaneya Lifecare Ltd’. [now known as Dr. Datson which is claimed to be currently proceedings. Said company was engaged in the business drugs and medicines. The assessee also had a proprietorship concern namely ‘M/s Benzolife’. A search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out in the case of “Aanjaneya Group” along with othe group concerns on 24.09.2013. A notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee for assessment year asking the assessee to file returns of income for relevant Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 2 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 These appeals have been filed with delay of 58 days. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee drawn our attention to the application of and the affidavit filed by tion of the delay, the assessee has mainly submitted that he was not well and suffering anxiety and panic attacks, and he was guidance of Dr. MD. The assessee also furnished a photocopy from time to time. In view enclosed ,we are of the opinion a sufficient and bonafide cause for delay in filing the of 58 days is condoned and these appeals Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was a now known as Dr. Datson currently under was engaged in the business he assessee also had a . A search and seizure tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) along with other notice u/s 153A of the Act was assessee for assessment years 2008-09 asking the assessee to file returns of income for relevant assessment years. The to 2014-15 have been Act, wherein various cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement During the assessments in some years, circular fund movement to the com through assessee, for which the assessee offered 0.5 percentile as commission income, which has been Officer to 0.75 percentile 3.1 The assessee filed appeals before the ld CIT(A) and various additions on merit. The assessee also challenged validity of proceedings u/s 153A on the ground, issued in the case of the assessee. This contention of the assessee has been rejected by the Ld CIT(A) and in t has duly referred the warrant and panchnamas prepared in the name of the assessee. incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee qua the additions made, in case of unabated assessment years, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [58 taxmann.com 78] (BombayHC).The ld the assessee and held that various material has been found in the Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 assessment years. The assessments for assessment years 2008 15 have been completed on 31.03.2016 u/s 153A of the , wherein various additions for total deposits in bank accounts, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement etc. have been made. assessments in some years, the assessee agreed that circular fund movement to the company ‘DDLL’ has been made for which the assessee offered 0.5 percentile as commission income, which has been increased by the Assessing 0.75 percentile of fund moved. The assessee filed appeals before the ld CIT(A) and on merit. The assessee also challenged validity of proceedings u/s 153A on the ground, firstly, that no warrant was in the case of the assessee. This contention of the assessee has been rejected by the Ld CIT(A) and in the impugned order, he has duly referred the warrant and panchnamas prepared in the name of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee challenged that no incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee made, hence no addition could have been made in case of unabated assessment years, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [58 taxmann.com The ld. CIT(A), however rejected this challenge of the assessee and held that various material has been found in the Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 3 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 assessment years 2008-09 u/s 153A of the deposits in bank accounts, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit, have been made. the assessee agreed that has been made for which the assessee offered 0.5 percentile as by the Assessing The assessee filed appeals before the ld CIT(A) and challenged on merit. The assessee also challenged validity of , that no warrant was in the case of the assessee. This contention of the assessee he impugned order, he has duly referred the warrant and panchnamas prepared in the , the assessee challenged that no incriminating material was found or seized in the case of assessee could have been made in case of unabated assessment years, relying on the decision of the CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [58 taxmann.com this challenge of the assessee and held that various material has been found in the search of the group hence, no relief was granted relying the ratio of hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Contin Corporation (supra). On merit, the Ld additions and directed relief, wherever addition was made twice in respect of same deposit, secondly as cash deposited in bank. Agg sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 In the appeals before us, validity of not been challenged the case of the assessee ground that no incriminating material was found qua the additions made, hence no addition could have been made in the assessments We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental warehousing Corporation (supra) has held that in case of unabated assessments or completed assessments, no addition could have been made without the aid of the course of search assessment years, which are unabated and the which are abated out of the assessment years involved before us. It is settled law that if in any of the assessment year, assessment 143(3) or 147 etc are pending assessments are treated as abated in terms of section 153A(1) of the Act. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 search of the group cases, which are incriminating in the nature, hence, no relief was granted relying the ratio of hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Continental warehousing Corporation (supra). On merit, the Ld. CIT(A) partly sustained the additions and directed relief, wherever addition was made twice in respect of same deposit, firstly, under the entries of banks and secondly as cash deposited in bank. Aggrieved, with the additions sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeals before us, validity of invoking section on the ground thatno warrant the case of the assessee. The appeals have challenged no incriminating material was found qua the additions made, hence no addition could have been made in the assessments We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental ration (supra) has held that in case of unabated assessments or completed assessments, no addition could have been made without the aid of incriminating material the course of search. Thus, it is relevant for us which are unabated and the which are abated out of the assessment years involved before us. It is settled law that if in any of the assessment year, assessment proceedings 143(3) or 147 etc are pending as on the date of search are treated as abated in terms of second proviso to 153A(1) of the Act. Further, if as on the date of search, the Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 4 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 incriminating in the nature, hence, no relief was granted relying the ratio of hon’ble ental warehousing CIT(A) partly sustained the additions and directed relief, wherever addition was made twice in under the entries of banks and rieved, with the additions sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. invoking section 153Ahas no warrant was issued in . The appeals have challenged only on the no incriminating material was found qua the additions made, hence no addition could have been made in the assessments. We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental ration (supra) has held that in case of unabated assessments or completed assessments, no addition could have material found during for us toanalyze the which are unabated and the which are abated, out of the assessment years involved before us. It is settled law that proceedings see u/s as on the date of search, then those second proviso to Further, if as on the date of search, the limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the for selection of case under scrutiny has not expired, then those assessments co been validly taken for scrutiny 31st October, 1989, issue a notice to an Assessee six months from the end or during the financial whichever is later, then by him has become started in respect of that where limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) has not expired, also get abated. But for the assessment u/s 143(3) or u/s 147 search or limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) already expired as on the date of search, those assessments would be unabated assessments. 3.3 In the case of 24.09.2013. There is no dispute between the parties on the fact that no assessments were pending either u/s 143(2) or u/s 147 of or any other section as on the date of search in relation to assessment years under reference examined as to whether the limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) was available on the date of search qua Under the provisions of the Act, the limitation for issue of notice Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the for selection of case under scrutiny has not expired, then those assessments co been validly taken for scrutiny. The CBDT Circular has clarified that when there was Assessee under Section 143(2) of end of the month in which the return financial year in which the return then the Assessee “can take it that final and no scrutiny proceedings that return.” Therefore, those assessment years where limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) has not expired, also the assessment years, if assessment u/s 143(3) or u/s 147 etc , is already completed before the date of search or limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) already expired as on the date of search, those assessments would be unabated In the case of assessee, search has been conducted on There is no dispute between the parties on the fact that no assessments were pending either u/s 143(2) or u/s 147 of or as on the date of search in relation to assessment years under reference, so the question of abatement has to be examined as to whether the limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) was available on the date of search qua each assessment year. Under the provisions of the Act, the limitation for issue of notice Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 5 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the for selection of case under scrutiny has not expired, then those assessments could have Circular No. 549 dated was a failure to of the Act within return is furnished return is furnished, that the return filed proceedings are to be herefore, those assessment years, where limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) has not expired, also if assessment proceedings already completed before the date of search or limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) already expired as on the date of search, those assessments would be unabated been conducted on There is no dispute between the parties on the fact that no assessments were pending either u/s 143(2) or u/s 147 of or as on the date of search in relation to assessment on of abatement has to be examined as to whether the limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) assessment year. Under the provisions of the Act, the limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) for each of the asse which is summarised in below table: AY Due date of filing return of income in salary case of assessee 08-09 31/07/2008 09-10 31/07/2009 10-11 31/07/2010 11-12 31/07/2011 12-13 31/07/2012 13-14 31/07/2013 14-15 31/07/2014 3.4 The assessment years 2008 u/s 143(1) of the Act and limitation for issuing notice u/s 143(2) hadexpired prior to assessment years. For limitation for selection of cases under scrutiny was no on the date of search, assessment. In case of unabated Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra) been made with the aid of the incriminating material 3.5 Therefore, now we take 2008-09 to 2011-12, grounds raised for assessment year 2008 under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 u/s 143(2) for each of the assessment year has been which is summarised in below table: Due date of filing return of income in salary case of assessee Expiry of Limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in the case of assessee 31/07/2008 30/09/2009 31/07/2009 30/09/2010 31/07/2010 30/09/2011 31/07/2011 30/09/2012 31/07/2012 30/09/2013 31/07/2013 30/09/2014 31/07/2014 30/09/2015 he assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 were completed u/s 143(1) of the Act and limitation for issuing notice u/s 143(2) prior to 24.09.2013, thus, those are the abated assessment years. For assessment year 2012-13 onwards limitation for selection of cases under scrutiny was no search, hence those are in the nature of abated In case of unabated assessments,it is Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra) that only addition could have the aid of the incriminating material Therefore, now we take up the appeals for assessment years 12, which are unabated,for adjudication. The grounds raised for assessment year 2008-09 are reproduced The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 6 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 ssment year has been provided, Expiry of Limitation for issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in the case of assessee were completed u/s 143(1) of the Act and limitation for issuing notice u/s 143(2) those are the abated 13 onwards, the limitation for selection of cases under scrutiny was not expired as those are in the nature of abated assessments,it is held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental only addition could have the aid of the incriminating material. the appeals for assessment years for adjudication. The are reproduced as The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); despite the fact that no search was undertaken on the appellant. The appellant prays that the assessment us 1 law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting to Rs. 12,16,39,728/ Assessing Officer has blindly taxed the entire deposits the bank account. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the same on merits subject to quantum being re 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of the cash deposits in bank account of Rs. 13,38, w/s 68 of the Act. The Fearned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which is already considered and part and pa made in Ground No. 2 mentioned herein above. 4. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 3,20,18,059/ appreciate that the appellant Balance Sheet netting off the loans. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given a partial relief and sustained addition of Rs. 1,14,22,000/ 4. This is the year of unabated assessment, hence case of Continental ware housing could have been made only on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of the assessee. As far as the issue of addition is concerned, the “4.4 I am unable to accept the appellant's aforesaid plea, because this is not a case where no incriminating material was found during the course of search. As regards the issue of abatement of assessment, Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); despite the fact that no search was undertaken on the appellant. The appellant prays that the assessment us 153A is bad in law and it be quashed. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting to Rs. 12,16,39,728/- u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer has blindly taxed the entire deposits the bank account. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the same on merits subject to quantum being re-verified. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of the cash deposits in bank account of Rs. 13,38, w/s 68 of the Act. The Fearned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which is already considered and part and parcel of addition made in Ground No. 2 mentioned herein above. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 3,20,18,059/-. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant had submitted a revised Balance Sheet netting off the loans. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given a partial relief and sustained addition of Rs. 1,14,22,000/-. This is the year of unabated assessment, hence Continental ware housing corporation (supra) could have been made only on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of the As far as the issue of no incriminating material qua the concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: 4.4 I am unable to accept the appellant's aforesaid plea, because this is not a case where no incriminating material was found during the course of search. As regards the issue of abatement of assessment, it is noticed that there was no Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 7 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); despite the fact that no search was undertaken on the appellant. The 53A is bad in 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer has blindly taxed the entire deposits in the bank account. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the same on merits The learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of the cash deposits in bank account of Rs. 13,38,000/- w/s 68 of the Act. The Fearned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition which rcel of addition made in Ground No. 2 mentioned herein above. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. . The learned Assessing Officer failed to had submitted a revised Balance Sheet netting off the loans. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given a partial relief and sustained addition of Rs. This is the year of unabated assessment, hence, as held in the (supra), addition could have been made only on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of the incriminating material qua the Ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: 4.4 I am unable to accept the appellant's aforesaid plea, because this is not a case where no incriminating material was found during the course of search. As regards the issue it is noticed that there was no prior assessment us. 143(3) in this case. The return was only processed u/s. 143(1). As such, the Assessing Officer can look at all the issues while framing the assessment order and is not constrained by only the issues aris the search action. As regards the claim that there was no incriminating documents found in the course of search, the facts are entirely different. Shri Kannan K.Vishwanath had promoted M/s. AanjaneyaLifecaré Ltd. later known as M/s Dr. Datsons Labs Ltd. (DDLL) which was incorporated on 03 01-2006. This company became public listed company for the year 2011 when it raised capital amounting to Rs. 117 crores through Initial Public Offering. The company appointed M/s.AnandRathi Adviso managers. In the case of DDLL, the appellant filed revised return for AY 2012 Rs.32.56 crores was reduced to Rs. 1.68 crores and the book profit was reduced from Rs.55.47 crores to Rs Irregularities were noticed in the IPO and the matter was enquired by SEBI. The share price of DDLL went upto Rs.850/- per share on 18 down to Rs.30/ various otherinformat out in the appellant group comprising of DDLL and the appellant.It was found thatdepreciation was claimed on bogus capex purchases, circular trading transactions was carried out by DDLL without delivery of any mater claimed by DDLL. Documents were found showing cash transactions by M/s. Sudar Industries Ltd., a group concern promoted by the appellant, whose papers and cheque books including cancelled cheques were found and seized from the residential premises of the appellant which indicated the number of instances of cash transactions related to Sh. Kashi Vishwanath and Shri Kannan Vishwanath. Evidence was found that the appellant has a proprietory concern M/s. Benzolife which was used as conduit to DDLL. This has been admitted by the appellant in his submission dated 26.3.2016 in the assessment proceedings. Bank account of the appellant with Axis Bank at Panel and Nariman Point Branches showed transactions with entities with whom b showing unaccounted transactions of Sh. Kashi Vishwanath with M/s.All Ammar Developers were found suggesting out of books cash transactions. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 prior assessment us. 143(3) in this case. The return was only processed u/s. 143(1). As such, the Assessing Officer can look at all the issues while framing the assessment order and is not constrained by only the issues arising from the findings of the search action. As regards the claim that there was no incriminating documents found in the course of search, the facts are entirely different. Shri Kannan K.Vishwanath had promoted M/s. AanjaneyaLifecaré Ltd. later known as M/s Dr. Datsons Labs Ltd. (DDLL) which was incorporated on 03 2006. This company became public listed company for the year 2011 when it raised capital amounting to Rs. 117 crores through Initial Public Offering. The company appointed M/s.AnandRathi Advisors Ltd. as book running lead managers. In the case of DDLL, the appellant filed revised return for AY 2012-13 in which the original returned income of Rs.32.56 crores was reduced to Rs. 1.68 crores and the book profit was reduced from Rs.55.47 crores to Rs.7.36 crores. Irregularities were noticed in the IPO and the matter was enquired by SEBI. The share price of DDLL went upto per share on 18-01-2013 which thereafter came down to Rs.30/- per share on 02-09-2013.Hence, based on various otherinformation, search & seizure action was carried out in the appellant group comprising of DDLL and the appellant.It was found thatdepreciation was claimed on bogus capex purchases, circular trading transactions was carried out by DDLL without delivery of any material.Bad debts were claimed by DDLL. Documents were found showing cash transactions by M/s. Sudar Industries Ltd., a group concern promoted by the appellant, whose papers and cheque books including cancelled cheques were found and seized from the l premises of the appellant which indicated the number of instances of cash transactions related to Sh. Kashi Vishwanath and Shri Kannan Vishwanath. Evidence was found that the appellant has a proprietory concern M/s. Benzolife which was used as conduit to transfer funds to DDLL. This has been admitted by the appellant in his submission dated 26.3.2016 in the assessment proceedings. Bank account of the appellant with Axis Bank at Panel and Nariman Point Branches showed transactions with entities with whom bogus transactions were carried out. Documents showing unaccounted transactions of Sh. Kashi Vishwanath with M/s.All Ammar Developers were found suggesting out of books cash transactions. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 8 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 prior assessment us. 143(3) in this case. The return was only processed u/s. 143(1). As such, the Assessing Officer can look at all the issues while framing the assessment order and is ing from the findings of the search action. As regards the claim that there was no incriminating documents found in the course of search, the facts are entirely different. Shri Kannan K.Vishwanath had promoted M/s. AanjaneyaLifecaré Ltd. later known as M/s. Dr. Datsons Labs Ltd. (DDLL) which was incorporated on 03- 2006. This company became public listed company for the year 2011 when it raised capital amounting to Rs. 117 crores through Initial Public Offering. The company appointed rs Ltd. as book running lead managers. In the case of DDLL, the appellant filed revised 13 in which the original returned income of Rs.32.56 crores was reduced to Rs. 1.68 crores and the book .7.36 crores. Irregularities were noticed in the IPO and the matter was enquired by SEBI. The share price of DDLL went upto 2013 which thereafter came 2013.Hence, based on ion, search & seizure action was carried out in the appellant group comprising of DDLL and the appellant.It was found thatdepreciation was claimed on bogus capex purchases, circular trading transactions was carried out ial.Bad debts were claimed by DDLL. Documents were found showing cash transactions by M/s. Sudar Industries Ltd., a group concern promoted by the appellant, whose papers and cheque books including cancelled cheques were found and seized from the l premises of the appellant which indicated the number of instances of cash transactions related to Sh. Kashi Vishwanath and Shri Kannan Vishwanath. Evidence was found that the appellant has a proprietory concern M/s. transfer funds to DDLL. This has been admitted by the appellant in his submission dated 26.3.2016 in the assessment proceedings. Bank account of the appellant with Axis Bank at Panel and Nariman Point Branches showed transactions with entities ogus transactions were carried out. Documents showing unaccounted transactions of Sh. Kashi Vishwanath with M/s.All Ammar Developers were found suggesting out of 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating material was unearthed in case of the appellant during the course of search. In view of this, no fault can be found with the action of the A.O. in issuing notice u/s. 153A to the appellant proposing to make assessments for all six A.Ys. Reliance is placed in this r Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 IT 493 (Del) wherein on similar facts, action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act and making additions on various grou case, the A.Ys. involved were 2000 07. During the course of search, a written undertaking of loan of Rs. 1,50,000/ that case to a lady had been recovered pertaining to A.Y.2003-04. In A.Ys.2001 subsequent years, the Assessing Officer had made additions on account of unexplained deposit,agricultural income and unexplained gift. After considering the legal provisions as well as the new scheme of po introduced w.e.f.01.06.2003, the Hon'ble High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that no addition could be made for agricultural income, gift received and unexplained deposits as stated above on the ground these additions, no material was found during the search carried out us. 132 and also on the ground that for all the A.Ys. under consideration, the returns filed by the assessee before the search had been processed us. 143(1)(a) of the It was also held that the Assessing Officer has the power u/s.153A to make assessment for all the six years and compute the total income of the assessee including the undisclosed income notwithstanding that the assessee filed returns before the date o 143(1)(a). In view of the broad parity of facts and issue involved, the ratio of aforesaid judgment will apply with full force in case of the appellant. Therefore, it is held that the A.0. was justified in making the imp the appellant by invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act and his action in doing so being in accordance with law is upheld. In view of the above position, the contentions raised bythe appellant are found to be devoid dismissed.Ground of Appeal No.2 is dismissed. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating was unearthed in case of the appellant during the course of search. In view of this, no fault can be found with the action of the A.O. in issuing notice u/s. 153A to the appellant proposing to make assessments for all six A.Ys. Reliance is placed in this regard on the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 IT 493 (Del) wherein on similar facts, action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act and making additions on various grounds was upheld. In that case, the A.Ys. involved were 2000-01 and2002 07. During the course of search, a written undertaking of loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 10.02.2003 given by the assessee in that case to a lady had been recovered pertaining to 04. In A.Ys.2001-02 and 2002-03 and even subsequent years, the Assessing Officer had made additions on account of unexplained deposit,agricultural income and unexplained gift. After considering the legal provisions as well as the new scheme of post search block assessments introduced w.e.f.01.06.2003, the Hon'ble High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that no addition could be made for agricultural income, gift received and unexplained deposits as stated above on the ground that in respect of these additions, no material was found during the search carried out us. 132 and also on the ground that for all the A.Ys. under consideration, the returns filed by the assessee before the search had been processed us. 143(1)(a) of the It was also held that the Assessing Officer has the power u/s.153A to make assessment for all the six years and compute the total income of the assessee including the undisclosed income notwithstanding that the assessee filed returns before the date of search which stood processed u/s. 143(1)(a). In view of the broad parity of facts and issue involved, the ratio of aforesaid judgment will apply with full force in case of the appellant. Therefore, it is held that the A.0. was justified in making the impugned assessment in case of the appellant by invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act and his action in doing so being in accordance with law is upheld. In view of the above position, the contentions raised bythe appellant are found to be devoid of merit and are dismissed.Ground of Appeal No.2 is dismissed.” Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 9 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 4.5. Thus, it can by no means be said that no incriminating was unearthed in case of the appellant during the course of search. In view of this, no fault can be found with the action of the A.O. in issuing notice u/s. 153A to the appellant proposing to make assessments for all six A.Ys. egard on the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 IT 493 (Del) wherein on similar facts, action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act nds was upheld. In that 01 and2002-03 to 2006- 07. During the course of search, a written undertaking of loan dated 10.02.2003 given by the assessee in that case to a lady had been recovered pertaining to 03 and even subsequent years, the Assessing Officer had made additions on account of unexplained deposit,agricultural income and unexplained gift. After considering the legal provisions as well st search block assessments introduced w.e.f.01.06.2003, the Hon'ble High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that no addition could be made for agricultural income, gift received and unexplained that in respect of these additions, no material was found during the search carried out us. 132 and also on the ground that for all the A.Ys. under consideration, the returns filed by the assessee before the search had been processed us. 143(1)(a) of the Act. It was also held that the Assessing Officer has the power u/s.153A to make assessment for all the six years and compute the total income of the assessee including the undisclosed income notwithstanding that the assessee filed f search which stood processed u/s. 143(1)(a). In view of the broad parity of facts and issue involved, the ratio of aforesaid judgment will apply with full force in case of the appellant. Therefore, it is held that the A.0. ugned assessment in case of the appellant by invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act and his action in doing so being in accordance with law is upheld. In view of the above position, the contentions raised of merit and are 4.1. We have heard rival submissions on the issue of no incriminating material found during the course of the search. The Ld. CIT(A) formed the opinion of existence of incriminating material on many observations. related to the company promoted by the assessee and irregularities were noticed in the initial public offering (IPO) raised by the said company, wh search in the case of the company along with the assessee. Secondly, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to claim of depreciation by the said company on bogus capex transactions etc. We are of the opinion that certainly, no incriminating material two observations. Thirdly transactions by M/s Sunder Industries and other papers were seized from the residence of the assessee. These evidences being related to the said company, same cannot be treated as incriminating material found related to the assessee. Fourthly, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to use of proprietary concern M/s Benzolife as conduit for transferring funds to DDLL. But, t Ld. CIT(A) himself has mentioned that this fact was admitted during the course of the assessment proceeding. cannot be treated as incriminating material found during the course of the search. Fifthly of the assessee, which cannot be treated as incriminating material as same are part of the regular books of accounts of the assessee. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 We have heard rival submissions on the issue of no incriminating material found during the course of the search. The formed the opinion of existence of incriminating material on many observations. Firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to facts related to the company ‘DDLL’. He has referred that promoted by the assessee and irregularities were noticed in the initial public offering (IPO) raised by the said company, wh in the case of the company along with the assessee. , the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to claim of depreciation by the said company on bogus capex purchase, circular trading transactions etc. We are of the opinion that certainly, no criminating material qua the assessee has been referred in these Thirdly, Ld. CIT(A) has referred to cash transactions by M/s Sunder Industries Ltd, whose cheque and other papers were seized from the residence of the assessee. evidences being related to the said company, same cannot be treated as incriminating material found related to the assessee. , the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to use of proprietary concern M/s Benzolife as conduit for transferring funds to DDLL. But, t Ld. CIT(A) himself has mentioned that this fact was admitted during the course of the assessment proceeding. Thus, this cannot be treated as incriminating material found during the course Fifthly, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to bank accounts , which cannot be treated as incriminating material part of the regular books of accounts of the assessee. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 10 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 We have heard rival submissions on the issue of no incriminating material found during the course of the search. The formed the opinion of existence of incriminating material , the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to facts . He has referred that ‘DDLL’ was promoted by the assessee and irregularities were noticed in the initial public offering (IPO) raised by the said company, which led to in the case of the company along with the assessee. , the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to claim of depreciation by urchase, circular trading transactions etc. We are of the opinion that certainly, no has been referred in these , Ld. CIT(A) has referred to cash whose cheque-book and other papers were seized from the residence of the assessee. evidences being related to the said company, same cannot be treated as incriminating material found related to the assessee. , the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to use of proprietary concern M/s Benzolife as conduit for transferring funds to DDLL. But, the Ld. CIT(A) himself has mentioned that this fact was admitted during material also cannot be treated as incriminating material found during the course to bank accounts , which cannot be treated as incriminating material part of the regular books of accounts of the assessee. Sixthly, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to transactions of the assessee with M/s A however, neither any been made nor any addition has been made of the said seized material in the case of the assessee. finding of ld CIT(A) reproduced above i existence of incriminating material 4.2 Now, examine reference of any seized material in additions made by the Assessing. the Assessing Officer has made three additions. addition of Rs.12,16,39,728/ credit entries of the bank accounts maintained with i.e. a saving bank account No. 0232101101571 and another current account No. 0232201002250 entire credit entries of those bank accounts as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: “6.5 During the course of assessment proceedings. it has been found that the assessee is having two account Bank, having account No. 0232101101571 and CA no. 0232201002250, However, the assessee has not furnished the nature and source of the credit entries in that bank account. Therefore, he has failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness o this transactions. The credit entries of Rs. 5.01.039/ Rs.12.11,38,689/ account 10. 02.12101.101571 and CA no. 0212201002250 respectively are treated as income of the assessee has not furnished nature and source of these entnies. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 , the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to documents of unaccounted transactions of the assessee with M/s All Ammar Developers, any reference of particular seized material nor any addition has been made by the AO of the said seized material in the case of the assessee. finding of ld CIT(A) reproduced above is factually incorrect existence of incriminating material. 2 Now, examine reference of any seized material in additions made by the Assessing. We find that in assessment year 2008 the Assessing Officer has made three additions. addition of Rs.12,16,39,728/- u/s 68 of the Act on the bank accounts maintained with i.e. a saving bank account No. 0232101101571 and another current account No. 0232201002250. The Assessing Officer held that the entire credit entries of those bank accounts as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: 6.5 During the course of assessment proceedings. it has been found that the assessee is having two accounts in the Canara Bank, having account No. 0232101101571 and CA no. 0232201002250, However, the assessee has not furnished the nature and source of the credit entries in that bank account. Therefore, he has failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the source along with the genuineness of this transactions. The credit entries of Rs. 5.01.039/ Rs.12.11,38,689/- as appearing in the Canara Bank, having account 10. 02.12101.101571 and CA no. 0212201002250 respectively are treated as income of the assessee as the assessee has not furnished nature and source of these entnies. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 11 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 documents of unaccounted ll Ammar Developers, particular seized material has by the AO on the basis of the said seized material in the case of the assessee. Thus, the s factually incorrect to hold 2 Now, examine reference of any seized material in additions We find that in assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer has made three additions. Firstly, the Act on the basis of the bank accounts maintained with Canara bank i.e. a saving bank account No. 0232101101571 and another current he Assessing Officer held that the entire credit entries of those bank accounts as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is 6.5 During the course of assessment proceedings. it has been s in the Canara Bank, having account No. 0232101101571 and CA no. 0232201002250, However, the assessee has not furnished the nature and source of the credit entries in that bank account. Therefore, he has failed to prove the identity and f the source along with the genuineness of this transactions. The credit entries of Rs. 5.01.039/- and as appearing in the Canara Bank, having account 10. 02.12101.101571 and CA no. 0212201002250 assessee as the assessee has not furnished nature and source of these entnies. The working of the unexplained income has been done on the basis of bank statement of these bank accounts running in 44 pages. Further, it has been noticed that there is absence continuity in the dates of thebank statement. Therefore, it might be possible that there may be other credit entries pertaining to A.Y under consideration. The 44 pages of both bank accounts are annexed as annexure 'A'of this order. In light of above d 12,16,39,728/ Further I am satisfied that the assessee has furnish the inaccurate particulars of income and concealed the particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s. 27 initiated.” 4.3 The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “5.4 I have considered the submissions carefully. It is noted that the appellant has merit in as much as the quantum of total credits in the bank a/c appe the assessing officer perhaps due to the fact that the bank statements annexed to the assessment order shows some pages containing repetition for same period (e.g. May 2007) and perhaps not carefully excluding the opening month. On test check basis, the appellant's contentions appears to be correct. However, the assessing officer is directed to check and verify the computation and restrict the addition to only credits received as reflected in the bank statem as regards the explanation and justification of the credits, the appellant has failed to furnished the same.The addition made is, therefore, upheld onmerits subject to quantum being re verified. Ground of Appeal No.3 is partly allowed. 4.4 During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) was specifically asked to refer and the produce the incriminating material qua this addition of unexplained credit into bank accounts. The Ld. DR despite providing sufficient t more than one month, the any incriminating material. We may note that Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 The working of the unexplained income has been done on the basis of bank statement of these bank accounts running in 44 pages. Further, it has been noticed that there is absence continuity in the dates of thebank statement. Therefore, it might be possible that there may be other credit entries pertaining to A.Y under consideration. The 44 pages of both bank accounts are annexed as annexure 'A'of this order. In light of above discussion, an aggregate addition of Rs. 12,16,39,728/- is made to the total income of the assessee. Further I am satisfied that the assessee has furnish the inaccurate particulars of income and concealed the particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act is The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 5.4 I have considered the submissions carefully. It is noted that the appellant has merit in as much as the quantum of total credits in the bank a/c appears to be incorrectly computed by the assessing officer perhaps due to the fact that the bank statements annexed to the assessment order shows some pages containing repetition for same period (e.g. May 2007) and perhaps not carefully excluding the opening balancefor each month. On test check basis, the appellant's contentions appears to be correct. However, the assessing officer is directed to check and verify the computation and restrict the addition to only credits received as reflected in the bank statements.However, as regards the explanation and justification of the credits, the appellant has failed to furnished the same.The addition made is, therefore, upheld onmerits subject to quantum being re verified. Ground of Appeal No.3 is partly allowed.” uring the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) was specifically asked to refer and the produce the incriminating material qua this addition of unexplained credit into bank accounts. The Ld. DR despite providing sufficient t month, he failed to produce or link the addition with the any incriminating material. We may note that Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 12 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 The working of the unexplained income has been done on the basis of bank statement of these bank accounts running in 44 pages. Further, it has been noticed that there is absence of continuity in the dates of thebank statement. Therefore, it might be possible that there may be other credit entries pertaining to A.Y under consideration. The 44 pages of both bank accounts iscussion, an aggregate addition of Rs. is made to the total income of the assessee. Further I am satisfied that the assessee has furnish the inaccurate particulars of income and concealed the particulars 1(1)(c) of the I. T. Act is The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 5.4 I have considered the submissions carefully. It is noted that the appellant has merit in as much as the quantum of total ars to be incorrectly computed by the assessing officer perhaps due to the fact that the bank statements annexed to the assessment order shows some pages containing repetition for same period (e.g. May 2007) and balancefor each month. On test check basis, the appellant's contentions appears to be correct. However, the assessing officer is directed to check and verify the computation and restrict the addition to only ents.However, as regards the explanation and justification of the credits, the appellant has failed to furnished the same.The addition made is, therefore, upheld onmerits subject to quantum being re- ” uring the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) was specifically asked to refer and the produce the incriminating material qua this addition of unexplained credit into bank accounts. The Ld. DR despite providing sufficient time of he failed to produce or link the addition with the any incriminating material. We may note that neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld addition with any incriminating material found and the course of search material qua this addition No. 2 of the appeal is accordingly allowed. 5. The ground No. 3 of the appeal relates to the Rs.13,38,000/-, which was wrongly mentioned by the Assessing Officer at Rs.48,72,000/ submitted that Ld. deleting the double addition of cash deposit and the ld AO has accordingly allowed the ground, hence ground was not pressed before us. No. 3 is accordingly dismissed. 6. The ground no. 4 relates to t made by the Assessing Officer in resp on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. The relevant finding of the Ld. Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: 8.2 The submission of the assesse however, the same is not found to be tenable as in the earlier balance sheet there have been matching between the asset and liabilities. The assets shown in the balance sheet filed earlier were having direct relationship with the asse plea of the assessee does not have force as the assessee has not furnished the supporting evidences to prove his point. It is to be noticed here that the loan has been shown to be taken from only two lenders i.e, M/s. Shree Ganesh Enterp Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 nor the ld. CIT(A) has specifically linked this addition with any incriminating material found and the course of search, therefore, in absence of any incriminating material qua this addition, same cannot be sustained. No. 2 of the appeal is accordingly allowed. The ground No. 3 of the appeal relates to the which was wrongly mentioned by the Assessing at Rs.48,72,000/-. Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee CIT(A) has already directed the Ld deleting the double addition of cash deposit and the ld AO has ngly allowed relief, so the assessee was not aggrieved qua hence ground was not pressed before us. No. 3 is accordingly dismissed. The ground no. 4 relates to the addition of Rs. 3,20,18, made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained cash credit on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. The relevant finding of the Ld. Assessing Officer is reproduced as 8.2 The submission of the assesse has been considered, however, the same is not found to be tenable as in the earlier balance sheet there have been matching between the asset and liabilities. The assets shown in the balance sheet filed earlier were having direct relationship with the assessee. Further, the plea of the assessee does not have force as the assessee has not furnished the supporting evidences to prove his point. It is to be noticed here that the loan has been shown to be taken from only two lenders i.e, M/s. Shree Ganesh Enterp Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 13 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 has specifically linked this addition with any incriminating material found and seized during herefore, in absence of any incriminating cannot be sustained. The ground The ground No. 3 of the appeal relates to the addition of which was wrongly mentioned by the Assessing Counsel of the assessee CIT(A) has already directed the Ld. AO for deleting the double addition of cash deposit and the ld AO has so the assessee was not aggrieved qua hence ground was not pressed before us. The ground of Rs. 3,20,18,059/- f unexplained cash credit on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. The relevant finding of the Ld. Assessing Officer is reproduced as has been considered, however, the same is not found to be tenable as in the earlier balance sheet there have been matching between the asset and liabilities. The assets shown in the balance sheet filed earlier ssee. Further, the plea of the assessee does not have force as the assessee has not furnished the supporting evidences to prove his point. It is to be noticed here that the loan has been shown to be taken from only two lenders i.e, M/s. Shree Ganesh Enterprises &M/s. Trimula Corporation in both balance sheets, however the amount has been changed which is represented in tabular form herein as under: Sr. No. Name of the Lenders 1. Tirumala Corporation 2. Shree Ganesh Enterprises 6.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed part relief to the assessee on this issue. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as “7.4 I have considered the submission carefully. It is noted that the appellant did not require to have his accounts audited since the turnover of the business was below the prescribed limits and the balance sheet prepared and submitted was only in the course of assessment proceedings. It is noted that in the submission dated 23.3.2016 in the assessment proceedings, it was informed that bank statements of Dr. Datsons Labs Ltd. were not available as it was under liquidation and the earlier assessing o submit balance sheet and capital accounts on as is where is basis. After the subsequent assessing officer provided the bank statements, a revised balance sheet and capital accounts was submitted. The amount of Rs. 1,89,07,186 / was supported by the confirmations filed by the appellant. The AO did not carry out any independent verification of these unsecured loans. Thus, there is no basis to reject the subsequent submissions and make the addition based on the initial submission when t audited balance sheet. Further, as regards the amount of Rs. 1,89,07,186/ amount of Rs. 1,14,22,000/ Rs.74,85,186/ Shree Ganesh Enterprises total credits received is Rs.9,37,49,875/ including that for sales of Rs.8,62,64,689/ balance is shown as Rs.74,85,186/ the closing further noted that the credit of Rs.9,37,49,875/ credits in the current a/c of the appellant with Canara Bank. The total amount of credits appearing in the bank statements Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 &M/s. Trimula Corporation in both balance sheets, however the amount has been changed which is represented in tabular form herein as under: Name of the Lenders Amount of loan in earlier B/S Corporation 1,14,22,000 Shree Ganesh Enterprises 2,05,96,059 Rs.3,20,18,059/- The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed part relief to the assessee on this issue. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as 7.4 I have considered the submission carefully. It is noted that the appellant did not require to have his accounts audited since the turnover of the business was below the prescribed limits and the balance sheet prepared and submitted was the course of assessment proceedings. It is noted that in the submission dated 23.3.2016 in the assessment proceedings, it was informed that bank statements of Dr. Datsons Labs Ltd. were not available as it was under liquidation and the earlier assessing officer had insisted to submit balance sheet and capital accounts on as is where is basis. After the subsequent assessing officer provided the bank statements, a revised balance sheet and capital accounts was submitted. The amount of Rs. 1,89,07,186 / supported by the confirmations filed by the appellant. The AO did not carry out any independent verification of these unsecured loans. Thus, there is no basis to reject the subsequent submissions and make the addition based on the initial submission when the same is not in the form of an audited balance sheet. Further, as regards the amount of Rs. 1,89,07,186/-, as per the appellant, this comprises of an amount of Rs. 1,14,22,000/- from Tirumala Corporation and Rs.74,85,186/- from Shree Ganesh Enterprises. In the case of Shree Ganesh Enterprises total credits received is Rs.9,37,49,875/- and after accounting for the journal entries, including that for sales of Rs.8,62,64,689/-, the closing balance is shown as Rs.74,85,186/-. The AO has taken only balance as the unexplained cash credit. It is further noted that the credit of Rs.9,37,49,875/- is reflected as credits in the current a/c of the appellant with Canara Bank. The total amount of credits appearing in the bank statements Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 14 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 &M/s. Trimula Corporation in both balance sheets, however the amount has been changed which is represented in tabular form Amount of loan in later B/S 1,14,22,000 74,85,186 1,89,07,186/- The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed part relief to the assessee on this issue. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 7.4 I have considered the submission carefully. It is noted that the appellant did not require to have his accounts audited since the turnover of the business was below the prescribed limits and the balance sheet prepared and submitted was the course of assessment proceedings. It is noted that in the submission dated 23.3.2016 in the assessment proceedings, it was informed that bank statements of Dr. Datsons Labs Ltd. were not available as it was under fficer had insisted to submit balance sheet and capital accounts on as is where is basis. After the subsequent assessing officer provided the bank statements, a revised balance sheet and capital accounts was submitted. The amount of Rs. 1,89,07,186 /- supported by the confirmations filed by the appellant. The AO did not carry out any independent verification of these unsecured loans. Thus, there is no basis to reject the subsequent submissions and make the addition based on the he same is not in the form of an audited balance sheet. Further, as regards the amount of Rs. , as per the appellant, this comprises of an from Tirumala Corporation and In the case of Shree Ganesh Enterprises total credits received is and after accounting for the journal entries, , the closing . The AO has taken only balance as the unexplained cash credit. It is is reflected as credits in the current a/c of the appellant with Canara Bank. The total amount of credits appearing in the bank statements with Canara Bank has Assessing Officer. Thus, to that extent, any addition in respect of unsecured loans from Shree Ganesh Enterprises amounts to double addition. Hence, addition in respect of 74,85,186/ comprised in Rs. 1,89,07,186/ and is, therefore, deleted. As regards the amount of Rs. 1,14,22,200/ Corporation, it is noted that the amount received is not reflected in the bank statements with Canara Bank. Instead, this credit is HDFC Bank. Hence, the addition u/s.68 is sustained in respect of the amount shown as received from Tirumala Corporation. In effect, as against the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,20,18,059/ Rs. 1,14,22,000/ 6.2 We have perused the relevant material on record we do not find any addition either by the Ld. Assessing O Ld. DR was also provided enough opportunity to produce any incriminating material qua the addition. It is evident from the finding of the Assessing Officer basis of the balance sheet and pro the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our opinion this addition material found during the course of the search and accordingly same cannot be sustained Warehousing Corporation (supra). Since the additions cannot be sustained on the legal ground of no incriminating material and therefore, we are not required to adjudicate upon the merit of the addition. The ground year 2008-09 is accordingly allowed. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 with Canara Bank has already been added us.68 by the Assessing Officer. Thus, to that extent, any addition in respect of unsecured loans from Shree Ganesh Enterprises amounts to double addition. Hence, addition in respect of 74,85,186/ comprised in Rs. 1,89,07,186/- amounts to double addition and is, therefore, deleted. As regards the amount of Rs. 1,14,22,200/- shown to be received fromTirumala Corporation, it is noted that the amount received is not reflected in the bank statements with Canara Bank. Instead, this credit is reflected in the current a/c of the appellant with HDFC Bank. Hence, the addition u/s.68 is sustained in respect of the amount shown as received from Tirumala Corporation. In effect, as against the addition made by the AO of Rs.3,20,18,059/-, addition is sustained only to the extent of Rs. 1,14,22,000/-. Ground of Appeal No.5 is partly allowed. We have perused the relevant material on record we do not find any reference of incriminating material either by the Ld. Assessing Officer or by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR was also provided enough opportunity to produce any incriminating material qua the addition. It is evident from the finding of the Assessing Officer that the addition made basis of the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts furnished by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our opinion this addition is not based on incriminating material found during the course of the search and accordingly cannot be sustained relying on ratio in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra). Since the additions cannot be sustained on the legal ground of no incriminating material and therefore, we are not required to adjudicate upon the merit of the addition. The ground No. 4 of appeal of the assessee for assessment accordingly allowed. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 15 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 already been added us.68 by the Assessing Officer. Thus, to that extent, any addition in respect of unsecured loans from Shree Ganesh Enterprises amounts to double addition. Hence, addition in respect of 74,85,186/- to double addition and is, therefore, deleted. As regards the amount of Rs. shown to be received fromTirumala Corporation, it is noted that the amount received is not reflected in the bank statements with Canara Bank. Instead, reflected in the current a/c of the appellant with HDFC Bank. Hence, the addition u/s.68 is sustained in respect of the amount shown as received from Tirumala Corporation. In effect, as against the addition made by the AO ustained only to the extent of . Ground of Appeal No.5 is partly allowed.” We have perused the relevant material on records, however, of incriminating material qua the fficer or by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR was also provided enough opportunity to produce any incriminating material qua the addition. It is evident from the the addition made is on the fit and loss accounts furnished by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings. based on incriminating material found during the course of the search and accordingly in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra). Since the additions cannot be sustained on the legal ground of no incriminating material and therefore, we are not required to adjudicate upon the merit of the of appeal of the assessee for assessment 7. The grounds raised for AY 2009 1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment us 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); despite the fact that no search was undertaken on the appellant. The appellant prays that the assessment u/s 153A is bad in law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting to Rs. 9,78,54,912/ Officer has blindly taxed the entire deposits in the bank account. The learned Comm (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition on merits subject to quantum being re 3. 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of the cash deposits in bank account of Rs. 1,50,000/ 68 of the Act. The lea appreciate that the source of cash deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition on merits which forms part of the addition made in Ground No. 2 mentioned herein above. 4. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the unsecured loans us 68 of the Act of Rs. 6,75,26,716/ appreciate that the appellant had submitted a revised Balance Sheet Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition while restricting the addition to Rs. 1,37,10,619/ 5. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in enhancing the income of the 39,800/- the appellant. 7.1 In AY 2009-10, the ground Nos. 1 to 4 are identical to ground nos. 1 to 4 for AY 2008 mutandis. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 The grounds raised for AY 2009-10 are reproduced as under: The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment us 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); despite the fact that no search was undertaken on the appellant. The appellant prays that the assessment u/s 153A is bad in law and it be quashed. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting to Rs. 9,78,54,912/- u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer has blindly taxed the entire deposits in the bank account. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition on merits subject to quantum being re-verified. 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of the cash deposits in bank account of Rs. 1,50,000/ 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition on merits which forms part of the addition made in Ground mentioned herein above. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the unsecured loans us 68 of the Act of Rs. 6,75,26,716/-. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant had submitted a revised Balance Sheet netting off the loans. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition while restricting the addition to Rs. 1,37,10,619/-. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by Rs. on account of credit in the HDFC Bank account of the appellant. the ground Nos. 1 to 4 are identical to ground nos. 1 to 4 for AY 2008-09, therefore same are decided Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 16 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 10 are reproduced as under: The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment us 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); despite the fact that no search was undertaken on the appellant. The appellant prays that the assessment u/s 153A is bad in law and it 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting to u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer has blindly taxed the entire deposits in the bank issioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition on merits 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of the cash deposits in bank account of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s rned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition on merits which forms part of the addition made in Ground 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the unsecured loans us 68 of the Act of Rs. . The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant had submitted a revised netting off the loans. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition while restricting the addition to Rs. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has appellant by Rs. on account of credit in the HDFC Bank account of the ground Nos. 1 to 4 are identical to ground therefore same are decided mutasis 8. In ground No. 5, income by the ld CIT(A) of Rs. 39,800/ reproduced as under: “9. In the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was asked to furnish the bank statements in respect of its accounts wit Anchorage Building, 170/171 Central Avenue, Chembur, Mumbai and to explain the credit entries. He was also informed that the failure to do so may result in enhancement of income. The appellant submitted the copy of statement with HDFC Bank as per which the total credits during the year is 60,39,800/ Rs60,00,000 on 4.4.2008 from Shree Ganesh Enterprises. The other credit is Rs39,800/ Rs60,00,000/ earlier. There is no explanation in respect of Rs 39,800/ Hence enhancement of income of Rs 39,800/ necessary based on the bank account with HDFC Bank. The income is therefore enhanced by Rs 39,800/ 8.1 On perusal of above any incriminating material found during the the income enhanced by the Ld CIT(A), therefore, no addition could have been sustained being unabated assessment decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental warehousing corporation (supra). The ground No. 5 of the accordingly allowed. 9. Now, we take up the Appeal for AY 2010 raised by the assessee are reproduced as und 1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); despite the fact that no Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 the assessee has challenged enhancement of income by the ld CIT(A) of Rs. 39,800/-. The finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 9. In the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was asked to furnish the bank statements in respect of its accounts with HDFC Bank account no. 00132320003567 at Anchorage Building, 170/171 Central Avenue, Chembur, Mumbai and to explain the credit entries. He was also informed that the failure to do so may result in enhancement of income. The appellant submitted the copy of statement with HDFC Bank as per which the total credits during the year is 60,39,800/-. This shows credit of Rs60,00,000 on 4.4.2008 from Shree Ganesh Enterprises. The other credit is Rs39,800/- on 5.8.2008. The addition of Rs60,00,000/- has been upheld in ground of appeal no 5 earlier. There is no explanation in respect of Rs 39,800/ Hence enhancement of income of Rs 39,800/- is considered necessary based on the bank account with HDFC Bank. The income is therefore enhanced by Rs 39,800/-.” rusal of above finding, we find that there is no material found during the course of search qua the income enhanced by the Ld CIT(A), therefore, no addition could have been sustained being unabated assessment, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental warehousing corporation (supra). The ground No. 5 of the Now, we take up the Appeal for AY 2010-11. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); despite the fact that no Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 17 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 has challenged enhancement of . The finding of ld CIT(A) is 9. In the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was asked to furnish the bank statements in respect of its h HDFC Bank account no. 00132320003567 at Anchorage Building, 170/171 Central Avenue, Chembur, Mumbai and to explain the credit entries. He was also informed that the failure to do so may result in enhancement of income. The appellant submitted the copy of bank statement with HDFC Bank as per which the total credits . This shows credit of Rs60,00,000 on 4.4.2008 from Shree Ganesh Enterprises. on 5.8.2008. The addition of eld in ground of appeal no 5 earlier. There is no explanation in respect of Rs 39,800/- is considered necessary based on the bank account with HDFC Bank. The we find that there is no reference of course of search qua the income enhanced by the Ld CIT(A), therefore, no addition could relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental warehousing corporation (supra). The ground No. 5 of the Appeal is 11. The grounds The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); despite the fact that no search was undertaken on the appellant.The prays that the assessment u/s 153A is bad in law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting to Rs. 8,71,40,866/ Assessing Off deposits was explained. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition while allowing relief subiect to verification of claim of the appellant of interest income being 3. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the deposits in Axis Bank accounts amounting to Rs. 9,44,99,000/ Officer failed to appreciate that the source of the deposits was explained. 4. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the unexplained income out of circular fund movements amounting to Rs. 7,26,000/ Officer ought to have accepted the disclosure made by the appellant of 0.5%. 5. 5. The learned Assessing addition of the unsecured loans us 68 of the Act of Rs. 29,54,95,384/ appreciate that the appellant had submitted a revised Balance Sheet netting off the loans. The learned Commissioner sustaining the 3,35,98,005/ 9.1 Before us the Ld the appeal was not pressed by the assesse dismissed as infructuous. identical to ground Nos therefore, same are decided mutat 10. Now, we take up appeal are produced as under: Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 search was undertaken on the appellant.The prays that the assessment u/s 153A is bad in law and it be quashed. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting to Rs. 8,71,40,866/ - u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of the deposits was explained. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition while allowing relief subiect to verification of claim of the appellant of interest income being offered to tax. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the deposits in Axis Bank accounts amounting to Rs. 9,44,99,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of the deposits was explained. he learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the unexplained income out of circular fund movements amounting to Rs. 7,26,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer ought to have accepted the disclosure made by the appellant of 0.5%. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the unsecured loans us 68 of the Act of Rs. 29,54,95,384/-. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant had submitted a revised Balance Sheet netting off the loans. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition while restricting the amount to Rs. 3,35,98,005/- subject to re-verification of quantum. Before us the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ground No. 4 of the appeal was not pressed by the assessee, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. The other ground Nos. 1to 3 and 5 are identical to ground Nos. 1 to 4 of the appeal for Ay 2008 same are decided mutatis mutandis. we take up appeal for AY 2011-12. The grounds raised produced as under: Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 18 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 search was undertaken on the appellant.The appellant prays that the assessment u/s 153A is bad in law and it 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the entire deposits in two Canara Bank accounts amounting to u/s 68 of the Act. The learned icer failed to appreciate that the source of the deposits was explained. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition while allowing relief subiect to verification of claim of the offered to tax. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the deposits in Axis Bank accounts amounting to Rs. u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of the deposits he learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the unexplained income out of circular fund movements . The learned Assessing Officer ought to have accepted the disclosure made by the Officer has erred in making addition of the unsecured loans us 68 of the Act of Rs. . The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant had submitted a revised Balance Sheet netting off the loans. The learned of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in restricting the amount to Rs. verification of quantum. the Ground No. 4 of therefore, same is . 1to 3 and 5 are 1 to 4 of the appeal for Ay 2008-09, 12. The grounds raised 1. “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment us 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act); despite the fact that no search was undertaken on the appellant. The appellant pray 153A is bad in law and it be quashed. 2. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the three deposits in the bank accounts amounting to Rs. 15,29,91,693 Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of the deposits was explained. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition subject ot verification of quantum and exclusion o one account to another. 3. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the unexplained income out of circular fund movements amounting to Rs. 36,83,715/ Officer ought to have acce the appellant of Rs. 23,34,500/ 4. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the cash deposits in bank account of Rs. 14,80,000/ Officer failed to appreciate that t deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition which is included in the amount of addition in Ground No. 2 mentioned herein above. 5. 5. The learned Assessing Offi addition of the unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 64,31,40,977 / 10.1 Before us the Ld the appeal was not pressed by the assessee, dismissed as infructuous. are identical to ground Nos 1 to 4 of the appeal for Ay 2008 therefore, same are decided muta Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment us 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act); despite the fact that no search was undertaken on the appellant. The appellant prays that the assessment u/s 153A is bad in law and it be quashed. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the three deposits in the bank accounts amounting to Rs. 15,29,91,693/- u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of the deposits was explained. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition subject ot verification of quantum and exclusion of transactions of internal bank transfers from one account to another. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the unexplained income out of circular fund movements amounting to Rs. 36,83,715/-. The learned Assessing Officer ought to have accepted the disclosure made by the appellant of Rs. 23,34,500/-. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the cash deposits in bank account of Rs. 14,80,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition which is included in the amount of addition in Ground No. 2 mentioned herein above. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 64,31,40,977 / -. The learned Before us the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ground No. 3 of the appeal was not pressed by the assessee, therefore, infructuous. The other ground Nos. 1to 2 and 4 to 5 are identical to ground Nos 1 to 4 of the appeal for Ay 2008 same are decided mutatis mutandis. Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 19 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the assessment us 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act); despite the fact that no search was undertaken on the s that the assessment u/s 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the three deposits in the bank accounts amounting to Rs. u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the source of the deposits was explained. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition subject ot verification of quantum and f transactions of internal bank transfers from 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the unexplained income out of circular fund movements . The learned Assessing pted the disclosure made by 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of the cash deposits in bank account of Rs. u/s 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing he source of cash deposits and withdrawals was submitted. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition which is included in the amount of addition in Ground No. 2 mentioned herein above. cer has erred in making addition of the unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. the Ground No. 3 of therefore, same is . 1to 2 and 4 to 5 are identical to ground Nos 1 to 4 of the appeal for Ay 2008-09, 11. As far as assessment year concerned, the assessments are abated Officer is authorised to make any addition even based on otherwise than incriminating material. The relevant grounds raised challenging the validity of addition are accordingly dismissed. grounds related to circular movement of hence same are dismissed as infructuous. grounds, before us, t additional evidences ledger accounts etc. statements. The ld. Counsel submitted that no reasonable oppournity was granted by the lower authorit evidences, therefore same might be admitted and matter might be restored back to the ld 11.1 We have heard rival submissions of the parties dispute. Since, the additional evidence therefore we feel it appropriate to restore the raised in assessment year 2012 Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that entire credits in the bank statement as unexplained separate additions for the cash deposits in the bank statement and unexplained cash credit for the in the bank statement. Accordingly Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 As far as assessment years 2012-13 to 2014 , the assessments are abated and hence, the assessing Officer is authorised to make any addition even based on otherwise than incriminating material. The relevant grounds raised challenging the validity of addition are accordingly dismissed. grounds related to circular movement of funds were not pressed, hence same are dismissed as infructuous. In respect of other grounds, before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed in the form of confirmation, detailed address . in respect of credits appearing in the bank The ld. Counsel submitted that no reasonable oppournity was granted by the lower authorities for producing those evidences, therefore same might be admitted and matter might be restored back to the ld. AO for deciding afresh. We have heard rival submissions of the parties Since, the additional evidences go to the root of the matter, therefore we feel it appropriate to restore the respective raised in assessment year 2012-13 to 2014-15 to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing officer held entire credits in the bank statement as unexplained, separate additions for the cash deposits in the bank statement and unexplained cash credit for the parties, which are already reflecting in the bank statement. Accordingly, he submitted that additions Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 20 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 13 to 2014-15 are and hence, the assessing Officer is authorised to make any addition even based on otherwise than incriminating material. The relevant grounds raised challenging the validity of addition are accordingly dismissed. The funds were not pressed, In respect of other he Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed in the form of confirmation, detailed address s appearing in the bank The ld. Counsel submitted that no reasonable for producing those evidences, therefore same might be admitted and matter might be We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue in go to the root of the matter, respective grounds 5 to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the Assessing officer held the , and also made separate additions for the cash deposits in the bank statement and are already reflecting he submitted that additions which are in respect of same party for s under credit in bank account and secondly under unexplai credit in books of account, considered the submission of the that addition could not be made twice for deposit, once, appearing in the bank statement appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee the situation in respect of cash deposit in bank account. Assessing Officer shall verify the contention accordingly take appropriate action grounds of appeal for assessment year 2012 accordingly allowed partly 9. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess 2008-09 to 2011-12 are assessment year 2012 allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHA JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31/05/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 which are in respect of same party for same deposit, under credit in bank account and secondly under unexplai credit in books of account, same might be eliminated. We have considered the submission of the assessee. We are of the opinion that addition could not be made twice for the same entry of the appearing in the bank statement in the books of accounts of the assessee the situation in respect of cash deposit in bank account. Assessing Officer shall verify the contention of the assessee and accordingly take appropriate action in accordance with law grounds of appeal for assessment year 2012-13 to 2014 partly for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess 12 are partly allowed whereas the appeals for assessment year 2012-13 to assessment year 2014 allowed for statistical purposes. nounced in the open Court on 31/05/2023. Sd/- AHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 21 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 deposit, but made once under credit in bank account and secondly under unexplained cash might be eliminated. We have e are of the opinion the same entry of the appearing in the bank statement and secondly in the books of accounts of the assessee and similar is the situation in respect of cash deposit in bank account. The of the assessee and in accordance with law. The 13 to 2014-15 are In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year allowed whereas the appeals for 13 to assessment year 2014-15 are partly /05/2023. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwantahn 22 ITA Nos. 4381 to 4387/Mum/2018 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai