Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Bhopal V. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, Bhopal

ITSSA 152/IND/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4640 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Deemed dividend
• Section: 69; 37; 132; 139; 143(3); 50C; 142(1); 153A; 2(22)(e); 234B

Judgement Text

SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HONBLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HONBLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS) NO.150 TO 155/IND/2017 & ITA NO.428/IND/20 17 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2013-14 IT(SS) NO.156 TO 161/IND/2017 ITA NO.429/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2013-14 IT(SS) NO.162 TO 166/IND/2017 & ITA NO.430/IND/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2013-14 SANJAY KUMAR SINHA, B-77, ALKAPURI, BHOPAL VS. DCIT ( CENTRAL ) - II , BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO.ANLPS8307G ANJANA SINHA, B-77, ALKAPURI, BHOPAL VS. DCIT (CENTRAL) - II , BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO.AHBPS5921Q RAJEEV SHARMA, FLAT NO.209, SOUMYA ENCLAVE, CHUNA BHATTI, BHOPAL VS. DCIT (CENTRAL) - II , BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO.AHBPS5924M SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 2 IT(SS) NO.167 TO 170/IND/2017 & ITA NO.427/IND/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2013-14 REVENUE BY SMT. ASHIMA GUPTA, CIT ASSESSEE BY S/ SHRI ASHISH GOYAL & N.D. PATWA, ADVOCATES DATE OF HEARING 08.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 .0 2 .2019 O R D E R PER BENCH THE ABOVE CAPTIONED BUNCHES OF 25 APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2013-14 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 (IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)], BHOP AL DATED 02.05.2017,28.4.2017, 21.4.2017 AND 20.4.2017 WHIC H ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 18.03.2015 AND 28.1 .2015 FRAMED BY DCIT(CENTRAL) & DCIT (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL. SMT. MANJU SHARMA, FLAT NO.209, SOUMYA ENCLAVE, CHUNA BHATTI, BHOPAL VS. DCIT (CENTRAL) - II , BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO.ASIPS3941G SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 3 2. AS MOST OF THE ISSUES RAISED ARE COMMON AND RELA TING TO THE SAME GROUP OF CASES THESE CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR SAKE OF CONVE NIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP APPEALS NO. IT(SS)150 TO 1 55/IND/2017 & ITA NO.428/IND/2017 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA WHERE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,17,199/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCO UNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,71,700/-. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 4 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,99,548/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCO UNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.5,82,000/-. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,01,312/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.3,61,666/- U/S 17(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCO UNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,00,000/-. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,34,187/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.3,89,300/- U/S 17(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMI TATION, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,65,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCO UNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,34,200/-. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMI TATION, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.20,000/-.. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 6 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCO UNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.32,50,769/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.63,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UN ACCOUNTED INVESTMENT U/S 69 O F THE ACT.. 6. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,51,950/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCO UNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.5,30,000/- 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.8,42,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT,1961. 6. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA IS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEV ELOPER AND BUILDER. SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 30.11.2012 SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 7 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE COMPANY AS WELL AS AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE DIRECTORS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO FILE RETURN OF I NCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2013-14 AND THE SAME WE RE FILED. ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2011-12 BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT LD.A.O) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SEVEN YEARS AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS WHICH WERE CHA LLENGED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND ASSESSEE GOT PART RELIEF. FOLLOWING CHART SHOWS THE DETAILS OF RETURN OF INCOME, VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY LD.A.O, RELIEF GIVEN BY LD.CIT(A) AND ADDITIONS CHALLENGING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL:- A. Y RETURN ED INCOME ADDITION BY LD.A.O RELIEF BY CIT(A) INCOME AFTER CIT(A) ORDER 2007 - 08 4,48,025 57,99,832 9,10,933 38,88,899 2008 - 09 9,90,120 45,18,651 74,125 44,44,526 2009 - 10 21,93,050 51,70,682 74,300 37,73,487 2010 - 11 21,11,270 6,99,200 - 6,99,200 2011 - 12 18,47,310 3,20,000 - 3,20,000 2012 - 13 42,01,330 1,01,10,769 - 1,01,00,769 2013 - 14 50,01,710 44,61,950 38,000 44,23,950 SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 8 5. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08 TO 2013-14 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 6. GROUND NO. 2 HAS BEEN RAISED COMMONLY FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2013-14 BY WHICH ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS BEING NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 7. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFER RING AND RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN T HE CASE OF CIT (CENTRAL)-III VS. KABUL CHAWLA (2016) 380 ITR 573 ( DELHI) SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDING AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND. THE ADDITIONS MA DE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12 ARE MERELY ON TH E BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND THERE IS NO LINK OF ANY S EIZED MATERIAL WITH THESE ADDITIONS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12S TANDS ABATED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON FOLLOWING THREE JUDGMEN TS; SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 9 (I) CIT VS CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING 374 ITR 645 (BO M) (II) OM SHAKTHY AGENCIES(MAD) 157 ITD 1062 (TRIB-C HENNAI) (III) CIT VS. LATA JAIN (2016) 384 ITR 543 (DEL) 8. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHE MENTLY ARGUED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIE S AND ALSO CONTENDED THAT DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD AND THEY RELATED TO THE ASSES SEE ALSO. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED AND RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 2 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007- 08 TO 2013-14, IT IS CONTENDED THAT IN ABSENCE OF A NY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE ASSESSME NT YEARS WHICH WERE NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE DET AILS OF RETURN FILED U/S 139 OF THE ACT AND DUE DATE OF ISSUANCE O F NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2011-12 IS M ENTIONED BELOW; SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 10 A.Y DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) DUE DATE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) STATUS ON DATE OF SEARCH 2007 - 08 VERIFICATION AT (PAPER BOOK 46) 25.07.07 (PB44) 30.09.2008 RETURN PROCESSED U/S 143(1). NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) 2008 - 09 (PAPER BOOK - 59) DATE NOT CLEAR 30.09.2010 (MAX) RETURN PROCESSED U/S 143(1). NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) 2009 - 10 30.03.2010 (PAPER BOOK 70) 30.09.2010 RETURN PROCESSED U/S 143(1). NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) 2010 - 11 18.01.2011 (PAPER BOOK 83) 30.09.2011 RETURN PROCESSED U/S 143(1). NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) 2011 - 12 05.3.2012 (PAPER BOOK 93) 30.09.2012 R ETURN PROCESSED U/S 143(1). NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) 10. THE ABOVE CHART SHOWS THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12 THE DUE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS STOOD EXPIRED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 30.11.2012 AND THEREFORE THE CASE FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 2007- 08 TO 2011-12 WOULD FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF NON ABA TED ASSESSMENT AND THE ADDITIONS COULD BE MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF EVIDENCE OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H. 11. FROM GOING THROUGH THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR ASSES SMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2011-12, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION RELAT ING TO UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND UNACCOU NTED CASH SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 11 DEPOSITS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF BANK ACCOUNT DET AILS CALLED FOR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THESE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WERE FOR THE TRANSACTIONS FOR T HE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM REGULAR SOURCE OF IN COME. IN THE SIMILAR FASHION THE UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITE WERE MAD E BY THE LD.A.O ON THE BASIS OF SALARY DETAILS VIS--VIS LEDGER ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD. TH IS SHOWS THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2 011-12 EMERGES OUT OF THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS CALLED DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO MENTION HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE LD.A.O ABOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD HAVE LIVE LINK WITH THE ADDITIONS MADE. IN THESE GIVEN FACTS THER E REMAINS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ADDITIONS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 TO 2011-12 HAVE BEEN MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT AND AS THE REGULAR RETURNS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12 HAVE BEEN FILED BY SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 12 THE ASSESSEE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THE DUE DATE FO R ISSUANCE OF NOTICES U/S 142 OF THE ACT STOOD EXPIRED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. 12. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT (CENTRAL)-III V/S KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) ADJUDICATING THE SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY GIVING SUMMARY OF DECISIONS AS WELL AS HOLDING THAT NO ADD ITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED BY OBSERVING A S FOLLOWS:- SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL POSITION 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN T HE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT E MERGES IS AS UNDER: I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A (1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUE D TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE S EARCH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DA TE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH AYS WILL HAV E TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT AY IN WHICH THE SEAR CH TAKES PLACE. THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INC OME' OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORD ERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESS MENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS 'IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AN D THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX'. IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITI ONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE O F THE SEARCH, OR OTHER SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 13 POST-SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THA T THE ASSESSMENT 'CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UN DER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL.' V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE CO MPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESS MENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD ' REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, T HE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A MERGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARAT ELY FOR EACH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTH ER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON THE RECORD OF THE AO. VII. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH B Y THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153 A ONLY ON THE BASI S OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISC OVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCL OSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. CONCLUSION 38. THE PRESENT APPEALS CONCERN AYS, 2002-03, 2005- 06 AND 2006-07.ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THE SAID ASSESSMENTS ALREADY STOOD COMPLETED. SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURIN G THE SEARCH, NO ADDITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME ALREAD Y ASSESSED. 13. ON EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD.A.O WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITIONS FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08 TO 2011-12 IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE BAS ED ON THE DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS CALLED FROM THE ASSESSEE DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE REGULARLY DISCLOS ED IN THE SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 14 RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE RESULT THIS COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2011-12 ARE ALLOWED AND GROUND NO.2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012- 13 & 2013-14 STANDS DISMISSED. 13. AS WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE ADDITIONS FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12 BY ALLOWING GROUND NO.2 RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED ON MERITS OF THE CASE FOR VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011- 12 BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND THUS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS INFR UCTUOUS. 14. NOW WE TAKE UP ITA (SS) 150/IND/2007 IN THE CAS E OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. A PROPOS GROUND NO.3 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS U/S 69 OF THE ACT. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT IN COMPLIANCE TO THE QUESTI ONNAIRE U/S 142(1) DATED 14.7.2014 ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE N ARRATION OF THE DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT. AS ON 1.6.2011 THERE WAS A CREDIT FROM M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD, SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 15 ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AND ACCOR DINGLY THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY LD.A.O WAS CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT( A). 15. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 16. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. FROM GOING THROUGH THE WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE NA ME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING DIRECTOR IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD PLACED AT PAGE 41 TO 45 OF THE WRITTEN SYNOPSI S, WE FIND THAT ON 1.6.2011 ADVANCE SALARY WAS GIVEN BY M/S. SOUMYA HO MES PVT. LTD TO ITS THREE DIRECTORS NAMELY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SIN HA, SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA AND SMT. ANJANA SINHA FOR TOTAL OF RS.15,00, 000/- DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS I.E. RS.5,00,000/- EACH. THUS THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE SALARY AS A DIRECTOR WHICH HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE REGUL AR RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION BEING DU LY EXPLAINED NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 16 17. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUND NO.4 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WHICH RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.32,50,769/- MAD E BY THE LD.A.O AS THE DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT CONF IRMED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR VARIOUS AMOUNTS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR FROM M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE DIRECTOR. 18. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. IT HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF RS.32,50,769/- RECEIVED IN PARTS DURING THE YEAR MAJORLY INCLUDES AMOUNT RECEIVED TOWARDS S ALARY FROM M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD AS WELL AS RECEIPTS TOWA RDS SHARE OF JOINT VENTURE PROJECT WHICH STANDS DULY DISCLOSED I N THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT.LTD AND THE SAME ARE VERIFIABLE FROM THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH, IN THE FOLLOWING CHART THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS GIVEN THE REFERENCE OF DATE OF TRANSACTION, AMOUNT ALONG WITH REFERENCE OF THE PAGE NUMBER OF THE PAPER BOOK, SOURCE OF AMOUNT REC EIVED AND RELATED DOCUMENT WHICH COULD PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS IN LIEU OF JOINT VENTURE AS WELL AS DIRECTOR SALARY:- SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 17 DATE AMOUNT 10 . SUBMISSION 11 . DOCUMENTS 09.05.2011 . 3,65,769 13 . (PB 162) . THIS IS THE SHARE OF JV PROJECT RECEIPT.(AS EXPLAINED EARLIER) . THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT AND JV ACCOUNT/LEDGER PB 208 MAINTAINED IN BOOKS OF SHPL. . 14.09.2011 . 5,00,000 . (PB162, BACK) . THIS IS TOWARDS SALARY ADVANCE TO APPELLANT FROM M/S SHPL. . THE SALARY ADVANCE (DIRECTOR) LEDGER IN BOOKS OF SOUMYA HOMES IS ANNEXED ALONG WITH THIS SYNOPSIS AT PG. NO 43 & 46. THIS HAS BEEN OFFERED AS SALARY IN RETURN. . 04.10.2011 . 4,00,000 . (PB162, BACK) . THIS IS TOWARDS SALARY 25 . THE SALARY ADVANCE (DIRECTOR) LEDGER IN BOOKS OF SOUMYA HOMES IS ANNEXED ALONG WITH THIS SYNOPSIS AT PG NO 42. . THIS HAS BEEN OFFERED AS SALARY IN RETURN. . 13.12.2011 . 15,45,000 . (PB163 BACK) . RS. 13,76,127/- IS TOWARDS RECEIPT OF JV PROJECT. AND RS. 1,68,873/- IS TOWARDS SALARY IN CAPACITY OF DIRECTOR. . JV ACCOUNT (PB 216) AND SALARY PAYABLE (DIRECTOR) LEDGER IN BOOKS OF SOUMYA HOMES IS ANNEXED ALONG WITH THIS SYNOPSIS AT PG. NO 48. . 12.01.2012 . 3,20,000 . (PB163) . THIS IS THE SHARE OF JV PROJECT RECEIPT.(AS EXPLAINED EARLIER) . THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT ( PB 209-215) AND JV ACCOUNT/LEDGER ON ( PB 216 ) MAINTAINED IN BOOKS OF SHPL. . 22.02.2012 . 1,20,000 . (PB163) . THIS IS TOWARDS SALARY . THE LEDGER OF SALARY IN BOOKS OF SHPL IS ANNEXED ALONG WITH THIS SYNOPSIS AT PG. NO.48 42 . TOTAL 43 . 32,50,769 44 . 45 . 19. THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS M ENTIONED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRIMARILY SHOW THA T THE ALLEGED AMOUNT IS NOT COMING UNDER THE PURVIEW OF DEEMED DI VIDEND BUT SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 18 STILL AS THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DISCUSSING ABOUT THESE DOCUMENT, WE FIND IT APPROPR IATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 TO THE FILE OF LD.A.O FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO PLACE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE ALL EGED AMOUNT OF RS.32,50,769/- IS NOT TAXABLE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND B UT IT IS A PART OF AMOUNT RECEIVED AGAINST THE ADVANCE SALARY AND SHAR E OF JOINT VENTURE PROJECT. THUS GROUND NO.4 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUND NO.5 RELATING TO ADDITIO N OF RS.63,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ORIGINAL DEEDS IN THE NAME OF PERSONS OTHER THAN THE ASSESSE E NAMELY SMT. VINITA PARASHAR (VALUE OF PROPERTY RS.17,50,000/-) SHRI G.P. SINHA AND SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA (PROPERTY VALUE AT RS.46 LAKHS) WERE FOUND. AS THE ORIGINAL SALE DEEDS WERE FOUND I N THE POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT JUST FOR THIS REASON THE INVESTMEN T IN THE IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES WERE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED I NVESTMENT U/S SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 19 69 OF THE ACT EVEN WHEN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133 O F THE ACT TO ALL THE PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY WERE DULY RECEIVED A ND REPLIED ACCEPTING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTIES. ASSESSE E FAILED TO GET ANY RELIEF FROM LD. CIT(A). 21. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 22. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF RS.63,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT MADE BY THE LD.A.O ON THE STRENGTH OF DOCUM ENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE SHAPE OF SALE DE EDS WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY DIFFERENT PERSONS. FOR SAKE OF CLARIF ICATIONS DETAILS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY, N AME OF THE PURCHASER AND AMOUNT PAID BY THE PURCHASER IS MENTI ONED BELOW; SR.NO 46 . REF 47 . DESCRIPTION 48 . NAME OF PURCHASER 1 1 . FS - 5, LPS 1/1, PG 62 - 93 50 . (PB 273-298) . SALE DEED BETWEEN M/S FORTUNE SOUMYA HOUSING OFFICE AT FORTUNE HOUSE, PLOT NO. 157, ZONE-I , MP NAGAR BHOPAL . SH RI G P SINHA, R/O 58, SOUMYA ESTATE, KHAJURI KALAN, BHOPAL. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 20 THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI SAM EER GUPTA S/O SHRI AJAY MOHGAONKAR S/O S. W. MOHGAONKAR & SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD. 69/A, ZONE-2, M.P. NAGAR, BHOPAL THOUGH DIRECTOR SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA S/O SHRI R.P. SINHA (SELLER) AND THE PURCHASER IS SHRI G.P. SINHA S/O LATE SHRI Y.N. SHINA R/O 58, SO UMYA ESTATE, KHAJURI KALAN, BHOPAL (M.P.) PURCHASING ONE FREEHOLD RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. C-57 PLOT AREA 1158 SQ. FT. SITUATED AT TULIP GREENS, GRAM MAHABADIA, TESHIL HUZUR, DISTT. BHOPAL FOR TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1082600/- DATED 31.03.2012. 2. . FS - 5 AS PER LPS - 1/2, PAGE NO. TO 21 54 . (PB 253-261) SALE DEED BETWEEN M/S FORTUNE SOUMYA HOUSING OFFICE AT FORTUNE HOUSE, PLOT NO. 157, ZONE-I , MP NAGAR BHOPAL THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI SAMEER GUPTA S/O SHRI AJAY MOHGAONKAR S/O S. W. MOHGAONKAR & SHRI SAMEER GUPTA S/O SHRI S.C. GUPTA R/O 31-A, B.D.A. COLONY, KOH-E-FIZA, BHOPAL (SELLER) AND THE PURCHASERS ARE SHRI SHAILENDRA KR. SINHA S/O SHRI RAM DAYAL SHRI SHAILENDRA KR. SINHA S/O SHRI RAM DAYAL SHINA AND SMT. NEELAM SINHA W/O VILL. & POST SUITHA DOST. PATNA STATE BIHAR. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 21 SINHA AND SMT. NEELAM SHINA W/O SHRI SHAILENDRA SHINA R/O VILL. & POST, SUITA DISTT. PATNA STATE BIHAR OF FREE HOLD RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. C-60 AREA 1156 SQ. FT. SITUATED AT TULIP GREENS, GRAM MHABADIA, TEHSIL HUZUR, DISTT. BHOPAL FOR TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1082600/- DATED 7.1.2012. 3. FS - 5 AS PER LPS 1/2, PAGE NUMBER 22 TO 44 55 . (PB 245-252) SALE DEEP BETWEEN M/S FORTUNE SOUMYA HOUSING OFFICE AT FORTUNE HOU SE, PLOT NO. 157, ZONE-I, MP NAGAR BHOPAL THOUGHT ITS PARTNERS SHRI AJAY MOHGAONKAR S/O SHRI S.W. MOHGAONKAR AND SHRI SAMEER GOUPTA S/O SHRI S.C. GUPTA R/O 31 -A, B.D.A. COLONY, KOH -E-FIZA, BHOPAL (SELLER) AND THE PURCHASERS ARE SHRI SHAILENDRA KR. SINHA S/O SHRI RAM DAYAL SINHA AND SMT. NEELAM SHINA W/O SHRI SHAILENDRA SINHA R/O VILL. & POST SUITHA DISTT. PTANA STATE BIHAR OF FREE HOLD RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. C -58 AREA 1156 SQ.FT. SITUATED AT TULIP GREENS, GRAM MAHABADIA, TEHSIL HURZU, DISTT, BHOPAL FOR TO TAL OF RS. 1082600/- DATED 7.1.2012. SHRI SHAILENDRA KR. SINHA S/OSHRI RAM DAYAL SHINA AND SMT. NEELAM SINHA W/O VILL. & POST SUITHA DOST. PATNA STATE BIHAR. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 22 4 4. FS - 5 AS PER LPS - 1/2, PAGE NO. 42 TO 62 56 . (PB 262-269) SALE DEEP BETWEEN M/S FORTUNE SOUMYA HOUSING OFFICE AT FORTUNE HOUSE, PLOT NO. 157, ZONE-I, MP NAGAR BHOPAL THOUGHT ITS PARTNERS SHRI AJAY MOHGAONKAR S/O SHRI S.W. MOHGAONKAR AND SHRI SAMEER GOUPTA S/O SHRI S.C. GUPTA R/O 31-A, B.D.A. COLONY, KOH-E-FIZA, BHOPAL (SELLER) AND THE PURCHASERS ARE SHRI SHAILENDRA KR. SINHA S/O SHRI RAM DAYAL SINHA AND SMT. NEELAM SHINA W/O SHRI SHAILENDRA SINHA R/O VILL. & POST SUITHA DISTT. PTANA STATE BIHAR OF FREE HOLD RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. C-61 AREA 1156 SQ.FT. SITUATED AT TULIP GREENS, GRAM MAHABADIA, TEHSIL HURZU, DISTT, BHOPAL FOR TOTAL OF RS. 1082600/- DATED 7.1.2012. SHRI SHAILENDRA KR. SINHA S/O SHRI RAM DAYAL SHINA AND SMT. NEELAM SINHA W/O VILL. & POST SUITHA DOST. PATNA STATE BIHAR. 23. APART FROM THE ABOVE FOUR PROPERTIES ONE MORE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF SMT. VINITA PARASHAR, THE SALE DEED OF WHIC H WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT LPS-20, FS-4 FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WORTH RS.17,50,000/-. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 23 24. ON EXAMINING THE DETAILS WE OBSERVE THAT THE PR OPERTIES ARE IN THE NAME OF SHRI G.P. SINHA WHO IS THE FATHER IN LA W OF THE ASSESSEE AND MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA WHO IS THE SISTER-IN -LAWS HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CLOSE RELATIVES. THE FATHER-IN -LAW IS VERY OLD AND BROTHER IN LAW IS NON RESIDENT INDIAN. WE FIND THAT PAYMENT FOR ACQUIRING THIS PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH AC COUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BY MR. G.P. SINHA, SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA RE SPECTIVELY AND THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DULY ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD. COMPLETE DETAILS OF BA NK ACCOUNT OF SHRI G.P. SINHA ARE FULLY EXPLAINED AND THE INVESTM ENT ARE ON THE RECORD WITH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. ASSESSMENT U/ S 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF SHRI S HAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA WHEREIN THE INVESTMENT AND RETURN OF IN COME WERE ACCEPTED. THUS IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN THE ALLEGED IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS IN WHOSE NAME THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REGISTE RED AND THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME IS NOT DOUBTED AS MR. G.P. SINHA I S A RETIRED PERSON WHO PAID THE AMOUNT OUT OF THE ACCUMULATED S AVINGS AND MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA HAS PAID AMOUNT OUT OF T HE DISCLOSED SOURCE OF INCOME EARNED FROM OUTSIDE INDIA. THEREFO RE THE ALLEGATION SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 24 OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE INVESTMENT OF R S.46 LAKH IN THE PROPERTIES IN THE NAME OF SHRI G.P. SINHA AND SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA IS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESS EE SEEMS BASELESS AS ALL THE EVIDENCES ARE ON RECORD WHICH C LEARLY PROVE THAT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES HAVE PAID CONSIDERATIO N FOR ACQUIRING DEED AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ALLE GED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. T HEREFORE ADDITION FOR UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF RS.46,00,000 /- U/S 69 OF THE ACT STANDS DELETED. 25. AS FAR AS THE PROPERTY OF SMT. VINITA PARASHAR IS CONCERNED IT IS TRUE THAT THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT BUT IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMON ISSUED TO SMT. VINITA PARASHAR, HER FATHER NAMELY SHRI SHRIRAM CHOUDHARY APPEARED AND STATED THAT HE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF STATE GOVERNME NT AND HAS SOLD ONE PLOT ADMEASURING 2400 SQ.FT AT KOLAR ROAD AND RECEIPT FROM SALE OF THE PLOT WAS INVESTED IN THE PROPERTY IN TH E NAME OF DAUGHTER. THE DOCUMENT RELATED TO THIS PURCHASE WA S DULY EXECUTED BUT WAS PENDING FOR REGISTRATION AND THE D OCUMENT SEIZED WAS A NORMAL BUSINESS DOCUMENT FOUND AT THE DIRECTO RS RESIDENCE. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 25 NO OTHER CONNECTION WAS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE ASS ESSEE AND SMT. VINITA PARASHAR. SHRI SHRIRAM CHOUDHARY HAS C ATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED THAT THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY HIM I N THE NAME OF HIS DAUGHTER FROM HIS OWN FUND RECEIVED FROM SALE O F PLOT AT KOLAR ROAD. THEREFORE WHEN ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHA SER WERE WITH THE LD.A.O AND THESE PERSONS APPEARED BEFORE THE LD.A.O THERE WAS NO ESTOPPELS ON HIS PART TO MAKE NECESSARY VERIFICATIO N AS WELL AS INVESTIGATION IF ANY REQUIRED FROM SHRI SHRIRAM CHO UDHARY. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO IOTA OF E VIDENCE WHICH COULD PROVE THAT INVESTMENT OF RS.17,50,000/- IN TH E PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF SMT. VINITA PARASHAR IS AN UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THUS DESERVES TO BE DELETED. WE A CCORDINGLY ALLOW GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE A DDITION OF RS.63,50,000/- MADE FOR UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 26. NOW WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL NO. ITA/IND/20 17 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 26 27. APROPOS GROUND NO.3 WHEREIN ADDITION OF RS.30,5 1,950/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT FOR UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCOU NT MADE BY LD.A.O AND SUSTAINED BY LD.CIT(A) IS CONCERNED, BRI EF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREM ISES OF SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA WHO IS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF M/S SOU MYA HOMES PVT. LTD DOCUMENT LPS-1, PAGE NO. 25 WAS SEIZED WH ICH SHOWS SOME CALCULATIONS. ON THIS PIECE OF DOCUMENTS AGAIN ST THE FIGURE OF RS.30,51,949/- SHOWN BALANCE, AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS WITH A PARTICULAR OF WORD SS WAS REDUCED AND REMAINING A MOUNT OF RS.10,51,949/- WAS SHOWN. MR. RAJEEV SHARMA DENIED TO HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PAPER. LD.A.O TREATED THE W ORD SS BEING REFERRED TO MR. SANJAY SINHA AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.30,51,949/- AS UNEXPLAINED TRANSACTION. ASSESSEE FAILED TO GET ANY RELIEF BY LD.CIT(A). 28. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 29. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US AND ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH TH E JUDGMENT RELIED AND REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 27 ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND NO.3 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2013-14 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.30,50,950/- FOR ALLEG ED UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION. THE BASIS OF ADDITION WAS A PIECE OF DOCUMENT FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF MR. RAJEEV SHARMA WH O IS ALSO THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT.LTD. ON THIS PIE CE OF DOCUMENT FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS MENTIONED; BALANCE 30,51,949 S.S 20,00,000 10,51,949 30. THE ABOVE REFERRED SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS NOT FOUN D IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. MR. RAJEEV SHARMA DENI ED TO HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PAPER. THE ADDITION FOR THI S AMOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA A ND TREATED IT TO BE AS UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION OF SHRI SANJAY SIN HA. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY DATE AND PARTICULAR OF TRANSACTION O N THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPEARING BUT JUST A WORD SS IS APPEARING. IT IS A WELL SETTLED IN LAW THA T THE LOOSE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CONSTRUED AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY KEPT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. SUCH EVI DENCE WOULD, SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 28 THEREFORE, BE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 34 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1972. HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL BU REAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. V.C. SHUKLA (1988) 8 SSC 410 AND CHUHARMAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1988) 172 250 38 TAXMAN N 190 (SC) HAS HELD THAT REVENUE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED IN RESTING ITS CASE ON THE LOOSE PAPERS, DIARY AND DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THIRD PARTY IF SUCH DOCUMENTS CONTAINED NARRATIONS OF TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE VIEW OF HONBLE APEX COURT WAS FOLLOWED I N THE CASE OF SHREE PARSHWANATH CONSTRUCTION 24 ITJ 409 (TRIB. IN DORE) AND IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT V/S LATA MANGESHKAR 97 ITR 69 6 (BOM.). 31. IT WAS ALSO SETTLED LAW IN THE CASE OF AMARJIT SINGH BAKSHI (HUF) VS. ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (DELHI) HELD THAT THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION WAS NOT RECOVERED FROM ASSESSEES PREMISES AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED ANY OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATIO N AND FURTHER HENCE THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT DELIVERED, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT REVENUES CASE THAT A HUGE FIGURE OVER AND ABOVE FIGURE BOOKED IN BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS CHANGED HANDS BETWEEN PARTIES AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE BASED ON SUCH DOCUMENT IN HANDS OF ASSESSEE. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 29 32. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF PRADEEP AMRUTLAL RUNWA L VS. TRO-3, PUNE (2014) 47 TAXMANN.COM 293 IT WAS HELD THAT PRESUMPTION U/S 132(4A) IS AVAILABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PER SON FROM WHOM THE PAPER IS SEIZED. IT COULD NOT BE APPLIED AGAINST A THIRD PARTY AND HENCE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF TH E EVIDENCE FOUND WITH THIRD PARTY. 33. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE JUDGMENTS AS WELL AS IN THE G IVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDITION OF RS.30,51,950/- FOR THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED TRANSACT IONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS FO UND AT THE RESIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY I.E. MR. RAJEEV SHARMA AND NO PARTICULAR OF THE TRANSACTION WITH DATE WAS MENTIONED NOR THERE W AS ANY DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE SUCH ADDITI ON SEEMS TO BE MADE MERELY ON SUSPICION AND DEVOID OF ANY CORROBOR ATIVE EVIDENCE WHICH COULD PROVE THE ALLEGED ADDITIONS OF THE LD.A .O. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW GROUND NO.3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.30,51,95 0/-. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 30 34. APROPOS GROUND NO.4 FOR THE ADDITION OF UNACCO UNTED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.5,30,000/-, BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT WAS CALLED FOR. LD.A.O WHILE EXAMINING THE BANK ACCOUNT OBSERVED THAT THER E WERE VARIOUS CASH DEPOSITS. LD.A.O WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE E XPLANATIONS AND THUS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,68,000/- TO THE TOTA L OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE LD.CIT(A) RS.38,000/- WAS DELETED AND THUS FOR THE REMAINING OF RS.5,30,000/- WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 35. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHOW ING THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT PLACED AT PAGE 32 TO 33 OF THE SYNOP SIS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE REGULAR WITHDRAWAL FROM AXIS BANK A S WELL AS DEPOSITS AND EXCEPT FOR NEGATIVE PEAK CASH BALANCE OF RS.81,420/- AT THE CLOSE OF OCTOBER, 2007 THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD EXPLAIN THE S OURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THE LD. COUNSEL THEREFORE REQUESTED TO SE T ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.A.O FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATIO N. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 31 36. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE ALLEGED ADDITION OF RS.5,30, 000/- CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.4 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 FOR NOT EXPLAINING THE ADDITION OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HELD WITH AXIS BANK. THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS ON 1.4.2012 THE OPENING CASH IN H AND SHOWN AS RS.43,84,311/-. PRIMARILY THIS FIGURE SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER AS THESE DETAILS WERE NOT PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE T HE ISSUE FOR UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.5,30,000/- TO THE F ILE OF LD.A.O FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION AFTER PROVIDING SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO FILE THE CASH FLO W STATEMENT. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 37. APROPOS GROUND NO.5 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 8,42,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, WE OBSERVE THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY US FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13 AND APPLYING THE SAME REASON AND DECISION TAKEN BY US WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF LD.A.O TO VERI FY THE DETAIL OF SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 32 AMOUNT OF RS.2,01,000/- AND RS.6,41,000/- RECEIVED ON 02.06.2012 30.03.2013 RESPECTIVELY TOWARDS AMOUNT DUE TO THE A PPELLANT AGAINST JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT FOR THE COST OF LA ND. NECESSARY DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE US AT PAPER BOOK PA GE 113 TO 116 AND PAPER BOOK PAGE 219. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.5 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 38. OTHER GROUNDS IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 39. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007- 08 TO 2011-12 ARE ALLOWED, APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2012-13 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 40. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP APPEALS NO. IT(SS)156 TO 1 61/IND/2017 & ITA NO.429/IND/2017 IN THE CASE OF SMT. ANJANA S INHA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2013-14 WHEREIN FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS ARE RAISED; SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 33 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.40,000/- 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.69,000/- (WRONGLY WR ITTEN BY CIT(A) AS RS.32,000/-) OUT OF TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,01,0 00/- THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.5,82,000/-. 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.65,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.3,61,666/- U/S 17(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2 ,90,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 7. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 34 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,50,2777/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.25,23,800/- U/S 17(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,03,562/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCO UNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 6. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,72,637/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOOKING OF UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS LOSS. 7. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMI TATION, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.25,000/-.. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,530/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,98,330/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOOKING OF UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS LOOSES. 6. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,992/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS. 7. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 35 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMI TATION, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.20,000/-.. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCO UNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,00,622/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES AS UNDISCLOSED RECE IPTS OF RS.1,05,100/- U/S 17(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. HAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CON SIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 36 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,55,000/- 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.1,70,352/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT,1961. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3 ,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 6. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.5 ,46,800/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CAP[ITAL GAINS. 7. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 41. GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 42. GROUND NO.2 HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RAI SING COMMON GROUND THAT ADDITIONS WERE NOT BASED ON INCRIMINAT ING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE HAVE DEALT T HIS ISSUE WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA W HEREIN WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20017-08 T O 2011-12 AFTER OBSERVING THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND AS THE DATE OF IS SUANCE OF NOTICES SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 37 U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT STOOD EXPIRED, NO ADDITION WA S CALLED FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153A OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT ( CENTRAL)-III V/S KABUL CHAWLA (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DELHI). 43. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE FACTS REMAINS SAME . RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YE1R 2007-08 TO 2011-12 STAND S FILED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. DATE OF SEARCH WAS 30.11.12. THE LAST DATE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS 30.9.2012, THUS IT REMAINS UNDISPUTED THAT BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH DUE DATE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT STOOD EXPIRED FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. FURTHER FROM P ERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 201 1-12, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR CASH DEPOSIT, DEEMED DIVIDEND, UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES, UNACCOUNTED CRED IT IN BANK, BOOKING OF BOGUS LOSS, UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT U/S 6 9 OF THE ACT. AND UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL GAINS. NO LIVE LINK HAVE B EEN ESTABLISHED BY THE LD.A.O FOR MAKING THESE ADDITIONS WITH ANY I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE AD DITIONS HAVE SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 38 BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS CALLED FOR IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 44. WE, THEREFORE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT (CENTRAL)-III VS, KABUL CH AWLA (SUPRA ) ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. ANJANA SINHA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12 BEING MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW GROUND NO.2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08 TO 2011-12 AND DELETE ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE THEREIN A ND DISMISS GROUND NO.2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 TO 2013-14. 45. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED GROUND NO.2 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12 ALL OTHER GROUNDS FOR 2007-08 TO 2011-12 BECOMES INFRUCTOUS AND MERELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AN D THEREFORE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 46. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL NO. 161/IND/2017 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2012-13. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 39 47. APROPOS GROUND NO.3 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 4,00,622/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF EXPL ANATION OF ALLEGED AMOUNT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE SMT. ANJANA SINH A IS DRAWING SALARY FROM M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD. RS.2,50,00 0/- IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS SALARY RS.1,42,414/- IS CL AIMED TO BE INCOME TAX REFUND AND RS.8,082/- MISCELLANEOUS REC EIPTS. PRIMARILY IT SHOWS THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT IS NOT C OMING UNDER THE CATEGORY OF DEEMED DIVIDEND BUT STILL BEING FAIR TO BOTH THE PARTIES WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.A.O TO MAK E NECESSARY VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED BY ASSE SSEE AFTER BEING PROVIDED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. GR OUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS THUS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 48. APROPOS GROUND NO.4 FOR THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITE AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF R S.1,05,100/- U/S 17(2)(III) OF THE ACT, BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSES SEE PURCHASED SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 40 SOME PROPERTIES FROM M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT.LTD. DU RING THE YEAR PLOT NO.51, SOUMYA ESTATE, BHOPAL WERE PURCHASED FO R CONSIDERATION OF RS.18,50,000/-. STAMP DUTY VALUAT ION WAS RS.19,15,100/-. DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,05,100/- WAS AD DED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITE. 49. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THIS ISSUE AND OBSERVE THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RAISED I N THE CASE OF M/S SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD VIDE ITA (SS)NO. 124 TO 1 29/IND/2017, ITA(SS) NO.141 TO 146/IND/2017, ITA (SS) NO.317/IND /2017 & ITA(SS) NO.342/IND/2017 WHEREIN THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT.LTD FOR DIFFERENCE B ETWEEN THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND PURCHASE CONSIDERATION. W HILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THAT CASE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE TRANSA CTION HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT AT FAIR MARKET VALUE AS LOWER RATES FOR THE PROPERTIES WERE CHARGED TO THE OTHER CUSTOMERS IN COMPARISON T O THOSE CHARGED TO THE DIRECTOR OR THE RELATIVES AND THUS T HE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE PLOT OWNERS WAS ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. WE ALSO HELD THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE SALE OF S TOCK IN TRADE FOR SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 41 THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPE AL. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DECISION, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT NO ADDITION OF RS.1,05,100/- WAS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITE. THUS GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASS ESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS ALLOWED. 50. NOW WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. ANJANA SINHA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 VIDE ITA NO.429/I ND/2017. 51. APROPOS GROUND NO.3 ADDITION FOR UNACCOUNTED CA SH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,55,000/-, REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE BY LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.A .O FOR CARRYING OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATION AFTER PERUSAL OF THE CASH FL OW STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE PLACED AT PAGE 506 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT OPPOSE THIS REQUEST. 52. WE THEREFORE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE OBSERVE THAT THE MONTH WISE CASH WITHDRAWAL AND CAS H DEPOSIT STATEMENT FROM AXIS BANK AND HDFC BANK IS FILED AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE T O EXPLAIN THE SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 42 DEPOSIT OF RS.1,55,000/- NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE TO T HE FILE OF LD.A.O FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE D ETAILS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEING PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD. THEREFORE GROUND NO.3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 53. APROPOS GROUND NO.4 WHICH RELATES TO ADDITION O F RS.1,70,352/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(2 2)(E) OF THE ACT, ON PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS P LACED BEFORE US AND STATEMENTS OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE W E FIND THAT ENTITLEMENT OF TOTAL SALARY AS ON 31.3.2012 IS RS.1 ,90,720/- AND THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF RS.1,73,352/- IS RECEIVED AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLE AMOUNT. FURTHER TOTAL SALARY DUE ON 31.3 .2013 IS RS.23,368/- (RS.1,90,720 (-) RS.1,73,352/-). THERE FORE THERE REMAINS NO BASIS FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.1,73,352/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E). GROUND NO.4 OF THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 54. APROPOS GROUND NO.5 FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CREDITS IN THE BANK. IT IS CONTENDED SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 43 THAT THIS AMOUNT IS LOAN TAKEN FROM THE ASSESSEES FATHER IN LAW SHRI R.P. SINHA. THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI R.P. S INHA IS FILED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 228. LD. CIT(A) DID NOT DELETE THE ADDITION FOR THE ALLEGED AMOUNT AND CONFIRMED IT. IT IS ALSO NOTICE D THAT SHRI R.P. SINHA WAS AVAILABLE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS WELL AS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. IN THESE GIVEN FACTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RS.3,00,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHRI R.P. SINHA COULD BE VERIFIED BY THE LD.A.O IN ORDER TO SATISFY ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS CL AIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI R.P. SI NHA FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE A SSESSEE, AFTER PROVIDING HIM NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 55. GROUND NO.6 IS RAISED AGAINST THE ADDITIONS OF RS.5,46,800/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL GAINS. 56. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQU ESTED FOR NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND. WE THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ADDI TION OF SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 44 RS.5,46,800/- AND DISMISS GROUND NO.6 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2013-14 AS NOT PRESSED. 57. THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH N EEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 58. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12 ARE ALLOWED AND FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13 & 2013-14 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 59. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP APPEALS NO. IT(SS)162 & 150/IND/2017 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09 TO 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.99,000/- 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.3,61,666/- U/S 17(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 45 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,50,000/- 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.3,89,300/- U/S 17(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.34,353/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE :- SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 46 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMI TATION, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.78,000/-.. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,662/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMI TATION, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,67,100/- 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,42,709/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,99,000/- 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.30,51,950/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS WITH SHRI SANJAY SI NHA. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 47 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.4,67,450/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH AND TREATING TH AT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH. 6. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 60. GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 61. GROUND NO.2 HAS BEEN COMMONLY RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION AS THEY WERE NOT BASED ON INCRIMINATIN G MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE HAVE DEALT THIS IS SUE WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA W HEREIN WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2011-12 AFTER OBSERVING THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE DATE OF ISSUAN CE OF NOTICES U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT STOOD EXPIRED, NO ADDITION WAS CA LLED FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153A OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT ( CENTRAL)-III V/S KABUL CHAWLA (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DELHI). SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 48 62. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE FACTS REMAINS SAME . RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2011-12 STAND S FILED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. DATE OF SEARCH WAS 30.11.12. THE LAST DATE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS 30.9.2012 THUS IT REMAI NS UNDISPUTED THAT BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH DUE DATE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT STOOD EXPIRED. FURTHE R FROM PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2011-12, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR CASH DEP OSIT, UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES, DEEMED DIVIDEND, UNACCOUNT ED TRANSACTION AND UNACCOUNTED CASH FOUND. NO LIVE LINK HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE LD.A.O FOR MAKING THESE ADDITIONS WITH ANY INCR IMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE AD DITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS CALLED FOR IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 63. WE, THEREFORE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT (CENTRAL)-III VS, KABUL CH AWLA (SUPRA ) ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE CASE OF SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 49 THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2011-12 IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW G ROUND NO.2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2011-12 AND DISMISS GROU ND NO.2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 TO 2013-14. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED GROUND NO.2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2011-12 AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE THEREIN, ALL OTHER GROUNDS FOR 20 08-09 TO 2011- 12 BECOMES INFRUCTOUS AND MERELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND THEREFORE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 64. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL NO.150/IND/2017 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13. APROPOS GROUND NO.3 RELATING TO UN ACCOUN TED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,67,100/-, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE REQUESTED TO SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE FOR VERIFICATION OF CASH FL OW STATEMENT CONTENDING THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND T O EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. THE MONTH WISE CASH WITHD RAWAL AND DEPOSIT STATEMENT FROM AXIS BANK AND INDIAN OVERSEA S BANK IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.18-20 OF THE SYNOPSIS. WE ACCORD INGLY SET ASIDE THE ISSUE AND DIRECT THE LD. A.O TO VERIFY THE WORK ING OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND IN CASE THERE IS SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND WITH THE ASSESSEE AT VARIOUS DATES OF CASH DEPOSITS THEN NO ADDITION SHOULD SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 50 BE MADE. NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHOUL D BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE CASH FLOW STA TEMENT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.A.O . ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS SET ASIDE F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 65. APROPOS GROUND NO.4 PERTAINING TO DEEMED DIVIDE ND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AT RS.13,42,709/-, WE HAVE GON E THROUGH THE RECORDS AS WELL AS THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. IT IS CONTENDED THAT AS ON 31. 3.2011 THE OUTSTANDING SALARY IS RS.1,06,492/- AND DURING FINA NCIAL YEAR 2011- 12 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) THE SALARY RECEIVABLE DURING THE YEAR IS RS.13,02,500/- WHICH MAKES TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE TO RS.23,62,992/-. AGAINST THIS FIGURE IT IS CLAIMED THAT RS.26,45,209/- HAS BEEN PAID WHICH INTERALIA INCLUD ES THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF RS.13,42,709/- AND THUS REMAINS NET DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.2,82,217/-. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THESE DETAILS AND FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIF IABLE IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD ARE PART OF THE REGULAR SALAR Y TRANSACTIONS SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 51 ENTERED INTO ORDINARY PROCESS OF BUSINESS. THE OUT STANDING DEBIT OF RS.2,81,217/- IN NO WAY COULD BE TERMED AS A LOAN B ECAUSE THERE ARE REGULAR TRANSACTIONS OF MONTHLY SALARY AND PAYM ENTS AGAINST IT AND THE BALANCE AT THE CLOSE OF THE MONTH IN THE YE AR GETS IT CHANGED. DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.2,82,217/- COULD NOT BE CATEGORIZED AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE RATHER IT IS A BALANCE OF T HE CURRENT ACCOUNT BETWEEN THE COMPANY I.E. M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD AND THE ASSESSEE, RELATING TO THE SALARY PAYABLE AND THEREF ORE NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS ALLOWED. 66. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUND NO.3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. APROPOS GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO UNACCOUNTED CASH DEP OSIT OF RS.3,99,000/-. AS OBSERVED EARLIER THIS ISSUE ALSO NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD.A.O FOR VERIFICATION ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND ON THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN BANK AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED AT PAGE 18-20 OF THE SYNOPSIS SHOWING THE CASH WITHDRAWAL AND CASH DEPOSITED IN A XIS BANK AND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK. THUS THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 52 67. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUND NO.4 FOR THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION OF RS.30,51,950/-. THIS ADDITION WAS M ADE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE SHEET LPS-1 PAGE 1 TO 25 CONSISTING THE HAND WRITTEN PAPERS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE A SSESSEE WHICH HAD FOLLOWING PARTICULARS; BALANCE 30,51,949 S.S. 20,00,000 10,51,949 68. THIS ISSUE CAME BEFORE US IN THE CASE OF SHRI S ANJAY KUMAR SINHA AND WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING IT T O HAVE BEEN MADE MERELY ON SUSPICION AND DEVOID OF ANY CORROBOR ATIVE EVIDENCE WHICH COULD PROVE THE ALLEGED ADDITIONS OF THE LD.A .O. LD.A.O MADE THIS ADDITION OF RS.30,51,950/- IN THE HANDS O F SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA ALSO WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT(A). NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 69. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE LOOSE PAPER APPEARING IN LPS -1 PAGE NO.25 SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WAS THE BASIS O F THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION OF RS.30,51,950/-. ASSESSE E FAILED TO GIVE SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 53 ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT AND ALSO STATED THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN BY HIM. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROV E THAT IT IS IN APPELLANTS HANDWRITING. WE OBSERVE THAT DURING THE SEARCH NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PERSONAL BILATERAL TRANSACTIONS BET WEEN THE FAMILIES OF DIRECTORS WAS FOUND AND THE DOCUMENT NOT IN THE HAND WRITING. CHARGE CAN BE LEVELED ON THE ASSESSEE ONLY WHEN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF IS A SPEAKING ONE. ASSESSEE BY ITSELF OR IN THE COMPANY OF OTHER MATERIAL FOUND ON INVESTIGATION AND/ OR IN TH E SEARCH FOR THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. FIRSTLY I T SHOULD BE CLEAR ABOUT THE TRANSACTION/EVENT WHICH ATTRACTS TH E LEVY, SECONDLY THE PERSON ON WHOM THE LEVY IS TO BE IMPOSED AND WH O IS OBLIGED TO PAY THE TAX, THIRDLY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH CHARG E OF INCOME TAX IS LEVIED, FOURTH WHETHER ANY TAXABLE INCOME ARISE S FROM THE TRANSACTIONS. IN ABSENCE OF ALL THESE CHARACTERISTI CS THE DOCUMENT BECOMES A DUMB DOCUMENT. RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CA SE OF CIT V/S GIRISH CHAUDHARY (2007) 163 TAXMAN 608/((2008) 296 ITR 619 (DELHI) THAT NO CHARGE COULD BE LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENT. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 54 70. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ALLEGED DOCUMENT IS NOT SPEAKING OF ANY TRANSACTION AS TO WHETHER IT IS CREDIT ENTRY OR PURCHASE ENTRY OR OUTSTANDING BALANCE. NO DATE AND NAME IS MENTIONED REVENUE AUTHORITIES MISERABLY FAILED TO MAKE ANY CORRELATIO N BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW ALLEGED DOCUMENT IS A DUMB DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS N O ADDITION COULD BE MADE. THEREFORE GROUND NO.4 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS ALLOWED AND ADDITION OF RS.30,51,950/- I S DELETED. 71. APROPOS GROUND NO.5 FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.4,67 ,450/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A ND TREATING IT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND, BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE CA SH OF RS.8,52,400/- WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA AND RS.3,00,000/- FOUND IN THE LOCKER NO.21 OF CANARA BANK. OUT OF THESE AMOUNT ADDITION OF RS.4,67,450/ - HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.A.O TO VE RIFY THE CASH BALANCE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF CASH FLOW STA TEMENT FILED AT PAGE 18-20 OF THE SYNOPSIS. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE DID NOT OPPOSED. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 55 72. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS CONTENDED THAT AS ON DATE O F SEARCH CASH BALANCE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.35,85,857/- WHICH COVERS THE ALLEGED ADDITION OF RS.4,67,450/-. THIS FACTS NEED S TO BE VERIFIED BY THE LD.A.O FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT THEN THE ADD ITION OF RS.4,67,450/- MAY BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY GROUND N O.5 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 73. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2011-12 ARE ALLOWED AND FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2012-13 TO 2013-14 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SE. 74. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP APPEALS IN THE CASE OF SM T. MANJU SHARMA, BHOPAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO 2013 -14 VIDE APPEAL NO. IT(SS)167 TO 170/IND/2017 & ITA NO.427/ IND/2017 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS; SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 56 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.6,31,240/- FROM M/S. SOU MYA HOMES PVT. LTD.. 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES OF RS.10,46,700/- U/S 72(2) (III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.4,32,328/- FROM M/S. SOU MYA HOMES PVT. LTD. 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO C ONSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMI TATION, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2 THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 57 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.40,000/-. 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMI TATION, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,00,000/- 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.1,63,376/- FROM M/S. SOU MYA HOMES PVT. LTD 5. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITES OF RS.2,13,600/- U/S 72(2)( III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.6,57,820/-. 7. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE : - 1. LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INITIO, BARRED BY LIMITATION , ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE A NNULLED. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS TH EY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.70,000/- 4. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.16,39,600/-. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 58 5. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CASH FOUND AMOUNTING TO RS.7,26,200/- 6. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING A.O TO CO NSIDER PROVISIONS OF 234B (3) BEFORE CALCULATING INTEREST U/S 234B. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 75. GROUND NO.1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO A DJUDICATION. AS REGARDS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO 2013-14 A RE CONCERNED, AS DECIDED BY US IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES IN THE PRECEDING PARA, IN THE SIMILAR WAY THE COMMON GROUND NO.2 HAS BEEN RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 -14 CONTENDING THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO ADDITION COULD BE MA DE IN ASSESSMENT U/S 153A/153C OF THE ACT. FROM THE PERU SAL OF THE RECORDS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FI ND THAT REGULAR RETURNS U/S 139 OF THE ACT WERE FILED ON 30 .3.2010, 4.1.2011 AND 5.3.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND DUE DATE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS 30.9.2010, 30.9.2011 AND 30.9.2012 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. THE DATE OF SEARC H WAS 30.11.2012. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE HIGH SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 59 COURT OF DELHI AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT (CENTRAL) -III V/S KABUL CHAWLA (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DELHI) ALL ADDITIONS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO 2011-12 COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY I F THERE IS ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH WHICH HAVE ITS NEXUS WITH THE ADDITIONS MADE. HOWEVER FR OM PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER WE OBSERVE THAT ADDITIONS HAVE FOR UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT, UNDISCLOSED RECE IPT FROM SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD, UNDISCLOSED PERQUISITE U/S 1 7(2)(III) OF THE ACT, UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAINS HAVE ITS NEXUS FROM THE DETAILS CALLED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 A AND THERE IS NO FINDING OF LD.A.O ABOUT THE INCRIMINATING MATERI AL FOUND FOR THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 76. WE THEREFORE TAKING THE CONSISTENT VIEW ALLOW T HIS COMMON ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND DELETE THE ADDITIONS FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO 2011-12 AS THEY WERE MADE IN ABSENC E OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. ALL OTHER GROUNDS FOR 2009- 10 TO 2011-12 BECOMES INFRUCTOUS AND MERELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AN D THEREFORE SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 60 NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. HOWEVER GROUND NO.2 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 & ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARE DISMISSED. 77. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUND RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2012-13. VIDE APPEAL NO.170/IND/2017. GROUND NO.3 IS RAISED AGAINST THE ADDITION FOR UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT AT RS.1,00,00 0/-. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR GROUND HAS ADJUDICATED IN THE SAME GRO UP IN PRECEDING PARAS IN THESE BUNCH OF APPEALS. IN THE INSTANT CA SE ALSO ASSESSEE HAS FILED CASH WITHDRAWAL AND CASH DEPOSIT STATEMEN T FOR AXIS BANK AND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ANNEXED AT PAGE 17-18 OF W RITTEN SYNOPSIS AND IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SU FFICIENT CASH IN HAND TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCO UNTS DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. A.O FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND IF SATISFIED MAY DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 78. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.4 FOR UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS.1,63,376/- FROM SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD IT HAS B EEN CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT IS NOT UNDISCLOSE D RECEIPTS AS IT WAS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALARY ACCOUNT HELD BY THE SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 61 ASSESSEEIN THE BOOKS OF M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT.LTD. WE FIND THAT AS ON 1.4.2011 THE OPENING BALANCE RS.1,76,264/- SA LARY PAYABLE, SALARY PAYABLE DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.11,91,100 AND THE AMOUNT PAID DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.9,42,349/- WHICH LEFT A CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.4,25,015/- AS ON 31.3.2012. ON THE CONTRARY THE WORKING GIVEN BY THE LD.A.O CONTAINS CERTAIN IRREGULARITIES AS THE FIGURES TAKEN IN THE WORKING ARE NOT CORRECT. THEREFORE TH IS ISSUE NEEDS TO SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD.A.O TO MAKE A FRESH WOR KING INCONSONANCE WITH THE CORRECT CALCULATION OF THE SALARY ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.4 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 79. APROPOS GROUND NO.5 FOR THE ADDITION FOR UNDISC LOSED PERQUISITE U/S 17(2)(III) OF THE ACT AT RS.2,13,600 /-, WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE CASE OF OTHER M EMBERS OF THE SAME GROUP FOR ALLEGED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCH ASE CONSIDERATION AND THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION. WE HAV E DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF M/S SOUMYA HOMES PVT. LTD VIDE ITA (SS)NO. 124 TO 129/IND/2017, ITA(SS) NO.141 TO 146/IND/2017 , ITA (SS) NO.317/IND/2017 & ITA(SS) NO.342/IND/2017 HOLDING T HAT THE SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 62 TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY M/S. SOUMYA HOMES PVT LT D WERE AT THE FAIR MARKET PRICE AND THERE NO UNDUE BENEFIT GIVEN BY THE COMPANY TO ITS DIRECTORS/EMPLOYEES IN SELLING THE PROPERTIE S VIS--VIS THE RATES CHARGED WITH OTHER CUSTOMERS. WE THEREFORE A PPLYING THE DECISION AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARA DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,13,600/- BY HOLDING THAT NO ADDITION WAS CALLE D FOR TOWARDS PERQUISITE U/S 17(2)(III) OF THE ACT FOR THE FLATS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.3.2012. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.5 IS ALLOWED. 80. APROPOS GROUND NO.6 FOR THE ADDITIONS TOWARDS U NDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.6,57,820/-, AT THE OUTSET LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR NON PRESSING THIS GROUND AND THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AND THE ADDITION FOR RS.6,57,820/- IS CONFIRMED. 81. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUND RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2013-14 VIDE APPEAL NO.427/IND/2017. GROUND NO.3 & 5 IS RAISED AGAINST THE ADDITION FOR UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSIT AND UNEXP LAINED CASH AT RS.70,000/- AND RS.7,26,200/- RESPECTIVELY. WE FIN D THAT SIMILAR GROUND HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN THE SAME GROUP IN PR ECEDING PARAS SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 63 IN THESE BUNCH OF APPEALS. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALS O ASSESSEE HAS FILED CASH WITHDRAWAL AND CASH DEPOSIT STATEMENT FO R AXIS BANK AND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ANNEXED AT PAGE 17-18 OF WRITT EN SYNOPSIS AND IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THESE I SSUES TO THE FILE OF LD. A.O FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION OF CASH FLOW STA TEMENT AND TO DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.3 AND GR OUND NO.5 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 82. APROPOS GROUND NO.4 FOR THE ADDITIONS TOWARDS U NDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.16,39,600/-, AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND AND THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AND ADDITION OF RS.16,39,600/- IS CONFIRMED. 83. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISPOSED OFF AS UNDER; SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 64 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA S.NO. APPEAL NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR RESULT 1 IT(SS) NO.150 TO 154/IND/2017 2007 - 08 TO 2011 - 12 ALLOWED 2 IT(SS)NO.155/IND/2017 2012 - 13 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 3 ITA NO.428/IND/2017 2013 - 14 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SMT. ANJANA SINHA 1 IT(SS) NO.15 6 TO 160/IND/2017 2007 - 08 TO 2011 - 12 ALLOWED 2 IT(SS) NO.16 1 /IND/ 2017 2012 - 13 PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 3 - 2013 - 14 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA 1 IT(SS) NO.162 TO 165/IND/2017 200 8 - 0 9 TO 2011 - 12 ALLOWED 2 IT(SS) NO.166/IND/ 2017 2012 - 13 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 65 3 - 2013 - 14 PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SMT. MANJU SHARMA 1 IT(SS) NO.162 TO 164/IND/2017 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - 12 ALLOWED 2 IT(SS) NO.165/IND/ 2017 2012 - 13 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 3 ITANO.427/IND/2017 2013 - 14 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.02.2 019 SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BOR AD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 15 FEBRUARY, 2019 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,ANJANA SINHA, RAJIV SHARMA & MAN JU SHARMA IT(SS)NO.150 TO 170/IND/2017 66