Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain, Mumbai, Mumbai V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune, Pune

ITA 475/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves six appeals by Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya concerning the reopening of assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2016-17 under sections 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11, which upheld the reopening. The primary legal contention was that the reopening was based on materials found during a search at Bhoomi Group, which should have invoked section 153C instead of section 147. The Tribunal examined whether the reopening was justified and whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to contest the reopening.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137916 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Karti P. Chidambaram vs. PDIT, Dr. Mable Katyare vs. ITO, Vikram Munishwarala Bajaj vs. ITO, Abhishek Dhanotia vs. ITO, G. Koteswaro Rao vs. DCIT, Bachan Singh vs. ITO, VI Khandge vs. ITO, Babanlal Agarwal vs. ITO, Navkar Electronics vs ITO, Tata International vs DCIT, CIT vs. Trend Electronics, GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. vs. ITO, Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, CBI vs. V.C.Shukla and Ors, Home Finders Housing Ltd Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Tangible material; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 131; 148; 132; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 139(1); 64; 48; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No’s.473, 475 to 479/PUN/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2010-11, 2011-12 to 2016-17 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, N.S. 6 th Road, JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle, Mumbai. PIN 400 056 PAN AAKPJ3257E vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Aaykar Sadan, Bodhi Tower, Pune. Maharashtra. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Naresh Jain & Shri Akshay Jain Revenue by Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of hearing 10/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 26 /04/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee’s six appeals ITA Nos.473 & 475 to 479/ PUN/ 2022 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11’s common Din & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2022-23/ 1042845772(1) dated 25.04.2022 in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, 1961. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 2 2. Learned counsel representing the assessee submitted at the outset all his instant six appeals raise common pleading in law as well as on facts. He has further submitted the assessee’s detailed written submissions to this effect reading as under : “1. Section 153C- Invocation of Section 147 is without jurisdiction and bad in law From Reason to believe contained in Asst order, CIT (Appeals) order, it is crystal clear that reopening under section 147 was done on the basis of material and information found during the course of search at Bhoomi Group. We rely on following judicial pronouncements which categorically held that in such circumstance, section 153C is specific provision which must be applied and application of section 147 is without jurisdiction and bad in law. i. Karti P. Chidambaram vs. PDIT (W.P No.16686 of 2018)( Pg 1 to 42 of LPBAl.) ii. Dr. Mable Katyare vs. ITO (ITA 287/Ran/2017)Pg. 43- 47 of LPB-1) iii. Vikram Munishwarala Bajaj vs. ITO (ITA No.2552/Pun/2017)(Pg 87-93) iv. Abhishek Dhanotia vs. ITO (ITA No.655/Ind/2018)(Pg 94-110 of LPB-1) v. G. Koteswaro Rao vs. DCIT [(2015) 64 taxmann.com 159] (Pg 122-134 of LPB_1) vi. Bachan Singh (ITA No.16/ Asr/2015) [lPg 135-Pg 145) of LPB-1] vii. VI Khandge vs (ITA No.1971/Pun/2014) LPB-2 (Pg 70-75 of LPB-1) viii. Babanlal Agarwal vs. ITO (ITA 1427/Pun/2011) LPB- 2 (pg 76-83) CIT (A) dismissed this ground relying on judgment of Navkar Electronics vs ITO (438 ITR 671). This judgment was set aside by 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 3 Division Bench in 438 ITR 676 (Pg 48-51 LPB-1). Both the judgments are enclosed as ITEM No.3 and Item Mo.6 of Legal Paperbqok-1. 2. Reasons to believe not communicated for AY 12-13, AY 14- 15 , AY 15-16 AY 16-17, As is clear from CIT (A) order Para 51 , for the above mentioned AY's only gist of reasons to believe has been given and the copy of reasons to believe have not been / shared in spite of reminder. We rely on case of Tata International vs DCIT (Pg 54-67 of LPB-II), wherein it was clearly held that gist of reasons cannot substitute reason to believe for reopening the case and reopening was quashed on this ground.We would also rely on case of Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Trend Electronics [(2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom)] which hold that reason to believe should be communicated to assessee and the same is a jurisdictional requirement and needs to be strictly complied with. Reopening proceeding should be quashed if reason to believe is not communicate as it violates Hon'ble Apex court judgment in GKN Driveshafts. 3. Cross examination opportunity was not given We rely on CIT (A) order Para 28.2, that for cross examination, assessee went to the office of Assessing officer but the person who was supposed to be cross examined - Mr .Akshay Doshi did not attend. We rely on judgment of Kalpesh Shah vs. ITO (LPB -2, Sl.No1.) that such non cross examination shall be fatal to the case of revenue. 4. Third party record cannot bind the assessee. The seized records were personal memorandum records of Bhoomi Group and Akshay Doshi, the same cannot bind the assessee. We rely on the decision of VC Shukla, Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696, Kalpesh Shah (supra), Praththana Construction (TA No.79 of 2000) (Guj HC) enclosed in Paperbook- 2(Pg 40-45). 5. Identity of "P.C Jain" as appellant by CIT (A) is erroneous. The reason to believe mentions the name of P.C Jain as found in the seized record . It is very difficult to understand that the “P.C Jain” referred in seized record is your appellant. We rely on decision of ITO vs. Kalpesh Shah (ITA No.158/Mum/2022) enclosed in paper book 2.” 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 4 3. We come to assessee’s legal argument first of all, inter-ala submitting that these section 148/141 proceedings are not sustainable in law since there already exists a self-exhaustive scheme under section 153A [incase of a searched person] followed by section 153C [an assessee other than the searched person] and therefore, both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in taking recourse to the impugned reopening which deserved to be quashed. He quoted “generalia specialibus non derogant” i.e., a special provision applies at the cost of all general provisions and sought to quash all these re-assessments once both the learned lower authorities have failed to initiate section 153C proceedings as per law. Learned counsel further buttressed the point at the assessee’s behest that such a jurisdictional effect would hardly be allowed to be cured at this belated stage since section 148/147 reopening and 153C are applicable in their respective specified circumstances only. He further quoted a catena of case law and prayed for quashing of all these re-assessments. 4. Mr. Jasnani on the other hand, strongly supported the learned lower authorities action taking recourse to section 148/147 proceedings in the given facts and circumstances of the case. He invited our attention the Assessing Officer’s identical reopening 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 5 involving ITA.No.473/PUN./2022 for the “lead” assessment year 2010-11 reading as under : "1. In the RMD Gutka group search u/s 132 was carried out on 20/1/2010. Warrant was also issued in the name of the assessee. Assessee has filed return on 01/03/2011 disclosing total income of Rs. 8,18,33,660/-. Order u/s 143(3) was passed assessing the income at Rs 8,18,33,660/-. 2. An information has been received from office of DCIT, Central Circle 6(2),Mumbai regarding payments received in cash from Prabhat Chandra Jain (PAN- AAKPJ3257E) for A. Y 2010- 11. Perusal of information revealed that a search and seizure action was conducted by the Unit -3, Investigation wing, Mumbai on M/s Ekta & Bhoomi Group on 05-10-2015. During the course of search and survey action, incriminating data of M/s Bhoomi Group has been, found, which is related to cash transactions executed by the Bhoomi group with different parties.tn the Search action u/s 132 at the premises of Smt Vasumati.B.Mody at A-202, Raj Tara CHS Ltd, Azad Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400057, a Laptop containing data was seized from the above mentioned premises. It has been duly admitted by directors of Bhoomi group, Sh. Akshay Doshi in his post search statement recorded u/s 131 dated 28.12.2015 and 4.1.2016 ,that this laptop contains unaccounted transactions of Bhoomi group. The data has been maintained in the ledger accounts as well as the folder meeting documents. As per data maintained in seized laptop, name of P.C. Jain has been found in different ledgers and folders. After analysis of data it has been found that P.C Jain has made capital contribution in cash towards partnership projects with M/s Bhoomi group of companies. As per data found in laptop total capital contribution made by P C Jain in cash amounts to Rs 15,99,00,000/- for A.Y. 2010-11. 3. The transactions made in cash by Sh. P C Jain are out of the books of account as admitted by Shri Akshay J Doshi, one of the director of Bhoomi Group. Further these transactions are also not reflected in the books of account of Shri P. C. Jain. 4. The above mentioned material facts regarding the unaccounted transactions were neither disclosed in original return filed for A. Y. 2010-11 nor offered for tax in original return filed and during assessment proceedings. 5. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs.15,99,00,000/- assessment within the meaning of provisions of Sec 147 of the IT Act for A. Y. 2010-11 by the reason of failure on the part of the assesses to disclose fully and truly all material: 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 6 facts necessary for assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 needs to be issued in the case of Shri Prabhatchandra S.Jain (PAN- AAKPJ3257E) for A.Y. 2010-11”. 4.1. The Revenue accordingly prayed for rejection of this assessee’s legal argument in issue. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival stands and find no merit in the assessee’s argument. There would be hardly any dispute that section 153C in the Act deals with an instance wherein it emerges during the course of search that the specified category of seized incriminating material belongs or pertains or relates to a third party other than the searched assessee. It is therefore, clear that fulfillment of the above clinching conditions prescribed therein is a sin-qua non for initiating section 153C proceedings whereas section 148 of the Act comes into play in case an Assessing Officer forms reason to believe of the assessee’s taxable income having escaped assessment. We proceed in this line of reasoning and find from a combined perusal of all these case files there is no material in these case files found or seized during the course of search which could be held to be belonging or pertaining or relating to this assessee namely Shri P.C. Jain so as to trigger section 153C mechanism in motion. All what the search in issue dated 20.01.2020 has led to some incriminating data of M/s.Bhoomi Group; which in turn, was led to cash transactions’ trail amongst 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 7 group entities. And also that Shri A. Doshi’s statements under section 131 recorded on 28.12.2015 and 04.01.2016 had clarified that the laptop concerned contained some data indicating unaccounted transaction of M/s.Bhoomi Group wherein the assessee Shri P.C. Jain had been found having made cash capital contributions towards various partnership projects of M/s.Bhoomi Group companies. 6. So far as the assessee’s above stated case law (supra), is concerned, we note that each and every judicial precedent therein involved a situation of seized material found during the course of search as satisfying the foregoing three components as against the relevant facts narrated herein above going against the assessee. We thus conclude that all these decisions hardly help the assessee’s in his first and foremost legal argument. We thus uphold the learned lower authorities action initiating section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee. 7. Next comes the assessee’s second argument in A.Y.2012-13 and 2014-15 to 2016-17 that all the impugned four assessments deserve to be quashed as he had not been furnished the corresponding reopening reasons by the Assessing Officer despite being specifically asked on 27.03.2019. There could be hardly any dispute in light of settled proposition as per G.K.N. Drife Shaft India Ltd., vs. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) that such reopening reasons 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 8 have to be furnished to an assessee so as to enable him to file objections before the Assessing Officer. We find in light of the settled legal proposition and from a perusal of the four corresponding re-assessments that the assessee had duly filed his objections before the Assessing Officer as per para 3.1 in the relevant discussion. The Assessing Officer has duly recorded therein that the assessee had requested to provide documents/information and statement of Shri A.J.Doshi relied upon in proceedings under section 147 of the Act. He has thereafter proceeded to reject the said objections vide order dated 22.10.2019 that the impugned reopening had initiated only as per the relevant tangible material only. These clinching findings had nowhere been disputed at the assessee’s behest either before the CIT(A) or before us. 8. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel has filed the assessee’s letter that he had specifically applied for the reopening reasons before the Assessing Officer which has nowhere been dealt with either in the assessment or in the CIT(A)’s order. We note from the perusal of the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in para 48 onwards that he had also sought for a remand report wherein it transpired that no such request had been submitted. The CIT(A) has thereafter rejected the assessee’s corresponding arguments as under : “47. Vide the ground No.1, the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer did not provide copy of reasons recorded in spite 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 9 of specific request for the same and in this manner, the Assessing Officer has violated the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s GKN Driveshaft India Ltd 125 taxman 963 (SC). The appellant has contended that failure to supply reasons is fatal to the entire reassessment proceedings and accordingly, the assessment order is liable to be quashed. In this regard, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Trend Electronics 61 taxmann.com 308 (Bom HC). 48. In support to this, the appellant has filed a copy of letter dated 27/03/2019, claimed to have been filed before the Assessing Officer. It is the claim of the appellant that vide this letter, the Assessing Officer was requested to furnish a copy of reason to believe. A copy of said letter dated 27/03/2019 was forwarded to the Assessing Officer for his comments. In response to this, the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 05/04/2022, has forwarded his report and has submitted as under: “2. As mentioned in the above referred letter, the assessee has submitted a letter dated 27/3/2019 wherein it is contended that the assessee had requested to the Assessing Officer to supply the copy of reasons to believe, based on which the assessment forA.Yrs 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 have been reopened. 3. In this respect, on-going through the case records for aforementioned A. Yrs, it is seen that no such letters have been submitted by the assessee in this office. It is further noticed that the copies of letters dated 27/3/2019 submitted by the assessee have no official acknowledgement receipt. It therefore cannot be confirmed that assessee had submitted letters dated 27/3/2019 in this office." 49. Thus, as per Assessing Officer said letter is not available on the assessment records. Also, the said letter does not bear any official acknowledgment receipt. The said report of the Assessing Officer was forwarded to the appellant for his comments. In response to the same, the appellant vide letter dated 11/0412022 has contended that the said letter was filed through e-mail. 50. A perusal of the said letter dated 27/03/2019, claimed to have been filed before the Assessing Officer suggests that vide this letter the appellant requested to treat the original return of income filed u/s 139(1) as a return in compliance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further, reasons to believe recorded at the time of reopening were claimed to have been requested vide this letter. The Assessing Officer has categorically stated that the said letter is not found on 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 10 the assessment records. It is the claim of the appellant that the said letter was filed electronically before the Assessing Officer. These facts clearly suggest that in all probability, the said letter claimed to have been filed through e-mail, skipped the attention of the Assessing Officer. However, from the documents filed by the appellant it is seen that on 23/09/2019, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 142(1) to the appellant and the gist of reasons for which case was reopened was incorporated in annexure-A to the said notice. In this manner, the gist of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, was duly provided to the appellant. As per para 3.1 of the assessment order, after receiving this notice dated 23/09/2019, the assessee vide submission dated 04/10/2019 raised objections regarding reopening of case, which were disposed by the Assessing Officer through a separate letter dated 22/10/2019. The relevant portion of the letter disposing of the objections has been reproduced in para 3.1 of the assessment order. It is seen from the same that the Assessing Officer after discussing various judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that since there is material available on record to form believe that there is escaped assessment, the appellant’s case is covered u/s 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has further held in this letter dated 22/10/2019 that the notice u/s 148 was rightly issued in this case. 51. The above discussion suggests that the gist of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment was provided to the assessee. Also, after receipt of same, objections was filed by the appellant and the objections raised by the appellant were duly disposed by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 22110/2019. The Assessing Officer has further mentioned in the assessment order that all the material/information/statement of Shri Akshay Doshi were provided to the assessee on 22/10/2019. However, the assessment order suggests that no further objections regarding reopening of the case was raised by the appellant after this letter dated 22/10/2019. It is also important to mention that on the basis of same material, the case for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 were reopened by the Assessing Officer and those assessments were already completed after providing the copies of reasons recorded/material, etc. for those assessment years. Thus, all the material was already available to the appellant and therefore, appellant was well aware about the reasons for which case was reopened for A.Y. 2012-13. In any case as mentioned above, the gist of reasons was provided and objections raised by the Assessing Officer were duly disposed by the Assessing Officer. After receiving the said letter, the appellant never raised a claim before the Assessing Officer that he has not been provided the actual copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and the appellant continued to participate in the assessment proceedings without 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 11 raising any further claim or objection. All these facts suggests that as such no prejudice is caused to the assessee. 52. The issue of non-providing the actual reasons have been discussed by the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s TATA Motors Ltd (ITA No.3334/MUM/2011)DATED 3/5/2019 wherein, the Hon’ble Bench has held as under: “6. From the above, it could be seen that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal issue which is preliminary in nature on the question of validity of reopening of assessment. At the time of hearing, Ld DR produced the assessment records before us. We are gone through the assessment folder and found that the reasons recorded by the Ld AO Vis-a-vis the letter of the Ld AO dated 15/11/2007 purported to be the reasons recorded do not match in entirety. When the fact was shown to both the parties before us and both the parties were agreed for the mismatch thereon. In this back ground, it could be safely concluded that the actual reasons recorded were not communicated to the assessee for filing its objections to the same in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd Vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Hence, the Ld AO also could not pass a separate speaking order disposing off those objections to the reasons recorded. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fair- play, to remand both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue to the file of Ld AO for de no adjudication in respect of issues contested before us along by both the parties after giving a clear finding on validity of reopening of assessment. In this regard, Ld AO is directed to supply the actual reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment to the assessee. The assessee, if it so desires, may file objections to the same. In case, if any objections filed by the assessee to the reasons recorded, Ld AO is directed to pass a separate speaking order disposing off those objections." 53. It is clear from the above decision of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai that if the Assessing Officer instead of actual reasons recorded by him, provides a gist of reasons vide a separate letter, same will not be fatal to the reassessment proceedings. 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 12 54. It may also be mentioned that the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, vide its decision in the case OF Home Finders Housing Ltd Vs. ITO [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 (Madras) has held that non- compliance of direction of Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd (supra)would not make reassessment order void ab initio. It is important to mention that SLP against the said decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Home Finders Housing Ltd Vs. ITO 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC). 55. Here it may be mentioned that the facts of the case of CIT Vs. Trend Electronics 61 taxmann.com 308 (Bom HC)as relied upon by the appellant are different than the facts of the present case because in the case of Trend Electronics (supra), even gist of reasons was not provided to the assessee and there was no occasion for the assessee to file objections. However, in the present case, gist of reason was provided to the assessee and the assessee filed objections which were duly disposed by the assessing officer. Therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Bombay HC in the case of Trend Electronics (supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 56. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the above mentioned case laws, it cannot be held that the non-providing the actual copy of reasons is fatal to the reassessment proceedings, as claimed by the appellant, especially when the gist of reasons were provided by the Assessing Officer and after receipt of same, objections were filed by the appellant and these objections were disposed by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 22/10/2019 wherein, the Assessing Officer categorically held that notice u/s 148 was rightly issued in this case. As mentioned earlier in this order, on receipt of said letter dated 22/10/2019, the appellant did not raise any grievance before the Assessing Officer or insisted that actual copy of reasons should be provided to him. The present case cannot be kept in the same category wherein the assessing officer altogether failed in intimating the reasons to the assessee. Considering the totality of facts of this case, I am of the opinion that mere non providing of copy of actual reasons to the appellant would not make the reassessment order void ab initio in this particular case. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED.” 9. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant second argument as well in light of the fact whatever material he had specifically sought from the Assessing Officer stood duly supplied to him leading to his 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 13 objection which finally culminated in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 22.10.2019. We express our inability therefore to quash all these four assessments in A.Y.’s 2012-13 and 2014-15 to 2016-17 merely because there has been some alleged communication gap between the assessee in submitting his application dated 27.03.2019 which was never pressed before the Assessing Officer even in the reopening objections filed on 04.10.2019 and disposed off on 22.10.2019. The assessee’s instant second substantive argument is also rejected therefore. 10. The assessee’s next three arguments inter alia are that he was never allowed to cross examine Mr.A.Doshi whose statement could not bind him and his identity has unexplained capital contributor has nowhere been established in both the learned authorities respective orders. We find that in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion has held the assessee and the searched party Shri A.Doshi as business associates partners as follows : “22. Vide the ground No. 6, the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer did not have any evidence to substantiate that the name of P.C. Jain as appearing in the seized data does actually pertain to the appellant. The onus of proving that the ‘P.C. Jain’ mentioned in the seized document is actually the appellant, is on the Assessing Officer, especially when the appellant has categorically denied any such transactions with the Bhoomi Group of companies. Also, Shri Akshay Doshi has nowhere stated that the P.C. Jain as referred in the seized data pertains to the appellant nor he has stated that the appellant has make cash contributions. The appellant has contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer should not have made any addition in this case. In this regard, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla and Ors (1980 AIR 962 SC). 23. Vide ground No. 7, the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer erred in making addition wfthput granting any opportunity of cross examination of Shri 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 14 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 15 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 16 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 17 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 18 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 19 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 20 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 21 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 22 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 23 11. It has come on record that the assessee has been duly afforded the opportunity of cross examination by the CIT(A) which was never availed by these two business partners. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the CIT(A) has also found the assessee as an investor/partner with M/s.Bhoomi Group of companies in para 27 of the lower appellate discussion. That being the case, we see no merit in assessee’s all the instant three latter contentions alleging violation principle of natural justice in light of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015] 281 CTR 24 (SC) as well as lack of substantiation regarding his identity in the corresponding books of M/s.Bhoomi Group and M/s.Prasasthi Developers. Rejected accordingly. 12. No other ground or argument has been raised before us during the course of hearing. 473 & 475 to 479/PUN/2022 Shri Prabhatchandra Sawailal Jain Vatsalya, Vile Parle, Mumbai. 24 13. These assessee’s six appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 th April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. PADMAHSHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 26 th April, 2023/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT (Central), Pune 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.