Venus Corporation, Ahmedabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 18/AHD/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0553 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Document seized; Question of law; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 68; 132; 69C; 143(3); 153A; 133(6); 191

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ायपी ‘डी’ अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos. 16 to 19/Ahd/2022 िनधा榁रणवष榁/Assessment Year : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Venus Corporation, 51, Sardar Patel Nagar, B/h. Navrangpura Tele Exchange, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 PAN : AACFV 6507 F Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ牸 अपीलाथ牸अपीलाथ牸 अपीलाथ牸/ (Appellant) 灹瀄 灹瀄 灹瀄 灹瀄 यथ牸 यथ牸यथ牸 यथ牸/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, AR Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR सुनवाई क琉 तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08.11.2023 घोषणा क琉 तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17.11.2023 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of separate orders passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad of even date i.e. 20.09.2021 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, respectively. 2. At the outset itself, it was pointed out that, in all the cases before us, the assessments were framed under Section 153A of the Act in consequence to the search action undertaken on the assessee, making additions on various counts. It was contended that one common addition permeated in all the years relating to commission expenses paid by the assessee found to be bogus. 2 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Besides, some other additions/disallowances were also made in the different years involved pertaining to unaccounted cash deposits, bogus salary and bogus donation. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that her solitary argument vis-à-vis the additions made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was that they were not based on any incriminating material found during search and as per the proposition of law now settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., reported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), any assessment framed under Section 153A of the Act for the years in which the assessments were unabated, addition could be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found during search. It was, therefore, contended that since the issue involved in all the appeals and the arguments against the additions was identical, all the matters be taken up together for hearing. Ld. DR fairly agreed with the same. Accordingly, all the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts and the issues involved in all these appeals are that a search action was undertaken on the assessee under Section 132 of the Act on 10.04.2019. Certain incriminating documents/material, including electronic media, were found; based on which, additions were made in all the years involved as under:- Assessment Year Particulars Amount 2014-15 Bogus Commission Expenses Rs.26,29,880/- 2016-17 Bogus Commission Expenses Rs.18,84,271/- 2017-18 Bogus Commission Expenses Rs.8,64,617/- Unaccounted Cash Deposit Rs.2,00,000/- 2018-19 Bogus Commission Expenses Rs.20,00,000/- Bogus Salary Rs.35,000/- Donation Disallowed Rs.7,50,000/- 3 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 4. The bogus commission expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer were partly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in appeal as under:- Assessment Year Bogus Commission expense confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) 2014-15 Rs.8,21,269/- 2016-17 Rs.7,79,016/- 2017-18 Rs.8,64,617/- 2018-19 Rs.20,00,000/- 5. Bogus salary disallowed/ added in A.Y 2018-19 Rs. 35,000/- was partly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.33,500/- while the remaining additions were confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 6. The plea of the assessee is that all the additions, which were confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), were not based on any incriminating material found during search. 7. We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. 8. As rightly pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the proposition of law with regard to assessment framed under Section 153A of the Act has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra), holding that in the years where the assessments are unabated, additions can be made based only on incriminating material found during search. The Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized its proposition of law so laid down in its order as under:- “14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: (i) that in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; 4 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 (ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; (iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs.” 9. Applying the proposition of law to the facts of the present case, we find that, while search was undertaken on the assessee on 10.04.2019, the assessment years before us are 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. It is not disputed that the assessments of these years were completed and unabated. Therefore, the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra) will apply to all the present cases before us. The ld. DR does not dispute the same. 10. Having said so, we were apprised during the course of hearing before us that the disallowance of commission expenses holding them to be bogus was made in all the years before us on the basis of identical documents/material found during search. Therefore, we shall be 5 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 adjudicating the issue of the disallowance of commission expenses for all the years before us together. 11. It is pertinent to first cull out the facts from the orders of the authorities below demonstrating the basis/documents based on which the commission expenses were found to be bogus. The orders of the authorities below reveal that the disallowance of commission expenses was made based on ‘Word Documents’ found in electronic media seized during search. These word documents contained credit notes for commission expenses and were numbered as “Annexure A-39”. Therefore, the word documents sourced from digital data seized during search, numbered as “Annexure A-39”, which contained credit notes for commission expenses, was the material on the basis of which the commission expenses were held to be bogus and hence disallowed. This fact finds mention at paragraph No.4.1 of the Assessing Officer’s order for A.Y 2014-15 , which is the same basis for all the years before us, as under:- “4.1. During the course of search action in the case of ADS Group, digital data found in various electronic media was imaged using forensics tools and the master copy and working copies of the data so imaged were seized. Number of word documents containing credit notes for commission expenses were found from the digital data imaged from a computer at the office premises and seized as Annexure A-39. The assessee vide Show Cause Notice dated 24.02.2021 was asked to provide explanation in respect of credit notes for commission expense of Rs. 1,86,18,567/-. The assessee was required to explain as to why the same cannot be treated as bogus commission expense.” 12. Besides this, we have noted that, the Assessing Officer referred to the statements recorded during the course of search, of Mr. Jatin Shah, accountant of assesses firm M/s Venus Corporation and Mr. Darshan Shah who was the main person of the group searched, admitting to the commission expenses as bogus, for holding the commission expenses noted from Annexure A-39 to be 6 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 bogus. The order of the ld.CIT(A) reveals that the statements of Mr. Jatin Shah and Mr. Darshan Shah were with respect to documents forming part of Annexure A-1 and not Annexure A-39. The same is revealed at paragraph No.6.1 of his order wherein he has noted the facts of the case as under:- “6.1 I have carefully considered the Assessment order made by the AO and the written submission filed by the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of search, various credit notes for commission expense were found and seized as Annexure - A/39. The AO had reproduced list of such credit notes in Assessment Order. Thereafter AO has referred to statement of Mr.Jatin Shah and Darshan Shah wherein they have admitted expenditure as appearing on page No. 15 to 20 of Annexure - 1 as bogus expenditure. The relevant extracts of statement of above referred two persons were reproduced in Assessment Order. The list of such expenditure as admitted by the concerned persons was already reproduced by Appellant in its written submission herein above. Relying upon such admission made by authorised person of firm with reference to Annexure A-1( Page No 15 to 20), the AO treated commission expenditure reflecting in credit notes found in Annexure A-39 as bogus and made addition of Rs.26,29,880/-.” 13. The admission in the statement recorded, pertaining to Annexure A-1 is tabularized at para 7.1 of the Ld.CIT(A)’s order as under:- Page No. Name of Person Firm Name Particulars Amount FY 15 Rajiv Anilbhai Shah Venus Corporation Management Fees for FY 2017-18 10,00,000 2017-18 16 Jagish Anilbhai Shah Venus Corporation Professional Fees for Advising in Marketing FY 2017-18 10,00,000 2017-18 17 Ashvinbhai Jayantibhai Dalal Venus Corporation Commission for Business FY 2018-19 9,20,029 2018-19 18 Jagish Anilbhai Shah AFST Professional Fees for Advising in Marketing FY 2017-18 5,00,000 2017-18 19 Rajiv Anilbhai Shah AFST Management Fees for FY 2017-18 5,00,000 2017-18 20 Mayur Premchand Shah AFST Consulting Fees for Marketing Matters FY 2017-18 6,00,000 2017-18 7 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 14. Copy of the statement of Mr. Jatin Shah is also placed before us at page Nos. 7-30 of the paper-book which confirms the aforesaid facts that Shri Jatin Shah had admitted to documents forming part of Annexure A-1 being in relation to bogus commission expenses . 15. Therefore, the material with the Assessing Officer, Annexure A-39, was the credit notes issued by the assessee to the parties to whom the commission was paid, which on a standalone basis cannot be said to be any incriminating material since it only evidences the fact of payment of commission by the assessee to the concerned persons in whose name the credit note is issued. 16. The statement of Shri Jatin Shah is in relation to some other documents found during search, Annexure A-1, and not in relation to the specific documents on the basis of which the bogus commissions have been disallowed in the impugned years. The documents of Annexure A-1 do not pertain to the impugned years also. But on the basis of admission of expenses paid to certain parties as per Annexure A-1 being bogus, commission expenses paid to these very same parties in the year impugned before us and pertaining to which documents in ANN A-39 were seized , were also held to be bogus. That is parties common to ANN A-1 and A-39, were treated as bogus. 17. As per the ld. CIT(A) himself, admission made towards certain loose papers found during the course of search and seized as Annexure A-1 cannot be mutatis mutandis applicable to seized material of Annexure A-39. He has held so at paragraph No.7.4 of his order which is reproduced hereunder:- 8 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 “......The admission made towards certain loos paper found during the course of search and seized as Annexure A-1 cannot be mutatis mutandis applicable to seized material of Annexure A-39....” 18. The ld. CIT(A) held so in relation to certain commission expenses which were not common to that found in Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-39, but the ratio, we find, applies universally even to the commission expenses paid to common persons noted in Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-39. The ld. CIT(A) has further gone on to say that, despite the assessee’s contending that these are genuine expenses and the documents also so revealing, the Assessing Officer did not make any further inquiries to determine as to whether the same were genuine or not. At paragraph No.7.5, the ld.CIT(A) makes a pertinent observation that “when there is no seized documents relating to payment to alleged parties being bogus or any statement of any concerned authority admitting such expenditure to be bogus, the Assessing Officer cannot make any addition of such commission (out of Annexure A-39) on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search for Annexure A-1”. The relevant portion of paragraph No. 7.5 is reproduced hereunder:- “7.5 It is further observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, Appellant has already provided explanation of such commission expenditure However, the AO had not made any further enquiries of such parties nor issued any notices under Section 133(6) of the Act to support his presumption. The AO had not brought on record any statement of commission agents or other parties wherein they have admitted such receipts to be bogus. When there is no seized documents relating to payment to alleged parties being bogus or any statement of any concerned authority admitting such expenditure to be bogus, the AO cannot make any addition of such commission (out of Annexure A-39) on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search for Annexure A-1. It is seen from the assessment order that AO has made addition without making any further inquiries or without bringing out any evidences in support of his claim that entire commission expenditure as appearing in Annexure A-39 were bogus. For example, an assessee has incurred expenditure of Rs. 100 crores and expenditure to the tune of Rs.3 to 4 crores are found to be bogus based upon 9 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 evidences found during the course of search. In such a situation, the AO cannot treat entire expenditure for Rs.100 crores as bogus based on evidences related to Rs.3 to 4 crores without doing any further inquiry or without bringing any positive evidence against the assessee. Thus, addition made by AO is without any cogent evidences/statements recorded during the course of search/any further inquiry during post search proceedings.” 19. He has further gone on to rely on various decisions in support of his findings as above :- “7.6 During the course of appellate proceedings, Appellant has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Adamine Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 44wherein it is held as under: 2. We notice that the search in the premises of the Bhushan Steel Group, had led to survey in the premises of various other assessees including M/s Adamine Construction Pvt. Ltd., and in the end the additions made in that case too were deleted. The deletion again concurrently by the lower appellate authorities was upheld by this Court recently in respect of the same assessee for an earlier assessment. Here too, the Court has considered the materials What is evident is that the AO went by only the report received and did not make the necessary further enquiries such as into the bank accounts or other particulars available with him but rather received the entire findings on the report, which cannot be considered as primary material. The assessee had discharged the onus initially cast upon it by providing the basic details which were not suitably enquired into by the AO 3. No question of law arises; the appeal is consequently dismissed. The SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2018] 99 taxmann.com 45. 7.7 The appellant has also relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Shapoorji Pallonji& Co. Ltd. [2020] 117 taxmann.com 625 wherein it is held as under: "IV. Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchase) - Assessment year 2010-11 - State Sales Tax Department informed Assessing Officer that two sellers from whom assessee made purchases, had stated that they had not actually sold any material to assessee - Though assessee furnished copies of relevant bills and entries made in its books of account, Assessing Officer made addition under section 69-C on account of bogus purchases Tribunal 10 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 found that Assessing Officer had not carried out any independent enquiry and failed to show that purchases were bogus - Whether merely on suspicion based on information received from another authority Assessing officer ought not to have made additions without carrying out independent enquiry and affording opportunity to assessee to controvert statements made by sellers - Held, yes [Para 191 [in favour of assessee]” 7.8 It is observed that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High court in case of CIT vs. Faqirchhandchamanlal 262 ITR 295 has held that it is a well settled preposition that the presumption that howsoever strong cannot substitute evidence and if there is no direct nexus on the point, no addition in block assessment can be made. In the instant case also, there was no evidence with the A.O. in support of his contentions that the assessee, in fact, earned the income by way of interest. SLP filed by department also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme court in 268 ITR 215(St). 7.9 Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Krishna Textiles v/s. CIT, 310 ITR227 has held that under Section 69C the onus is on the revenue to prove that the income really belongs to the assessee. 7.10 It is relevant to consider decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of ACIT v. KishanLal Jewels (P.) Ltd. (2012) 147 ITR 308 wherein it is held as under: "The assessee while furnishing necessary information regarding the transactions and the aforesaid parties like purchase bills issued against goods purchased, sales- tax registration numbers of the parties, PANs, their confirmations and Bank statements showing the debit of the amount paid through Account payee Cheques to them in the account of assessee and credited in the Bank Account of sellers, had discharged its primary onus, thereafter the onus shifted on the department to rebut the same. Addition under section 69C was held to be not justified." 7.11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd., and Another 184 ITR 308 (SC) held that assessment has to be based on evidence and not even on 'a great deal of suspicion'. Similar view is also rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salary Mohamed Sait V/s CIT 37 ITR 151. In this case, as discussed herein above, AO has failed to bring any evidence on record to prove such expenditure to be bogus without doing any further inquiry. Therefore, considering these facts of the case and in view of the legal pronouncements cited above, addition made by AO for Rs.18,08,611 is deleted.” 20. As per the ld. CIT(A)’s own reasoning and understanding, either the documents found during the course of search ought to be incriminating or 11 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 there have to be an admission by authoritative persons admitting to the fact of the expenses being bogus so as to constitute incriminating material. The case laws relied upon by him are to this effect. In the facts of the present case, the documents itself are not incriminating, as noted above by us being credit notes of commission expenses. The statements of Shri Jatin Shah, admitting to the commission expenses being bogus, are not in relation to these documents. Therefore, we agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no incriminating material to the effect that the commission expenses evidenced by credit notes forming part of Annexure A-39 were bogus in nature. The disallowance, therefore, made holding them to be bogus in proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, in all the years before us, are not sustainable in law and are, therefore, directed to be deleted. 21. The next addition pertains to that of cash deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- made in Assessment Year 2017-18. The documents on the basis of which it was made was non-electronic seized material showing cash deposits of Rs.2,00,000/- by one Mr. Hiren Deputy, which was admitted by Mr. Jatin Shah, Mr. Anshul Shah, Mr. Darshan Shah and Mr. Hardik Shah to be unaccounted in the books of the assessee. These facts find mention at paragraph Nos. 4.1 to 4.3 of the assessment order as under:- “4.1 During the course of search at the Office of assessee located at 51, Sardar Patel Nagar, Opp NabardVinar, Behind Navrangpura Telephone Exchange, Ahmedabad, certain Non-electronic seized material was found based on which following detail emerged with respect to the cash deposits are unaccounted by the assessee: S. No. Page No. Total Amount (Rs.) A.Y. Entities involved 6 29 2,00,000/- 2017-18 Hiren Deputy (unaccounted) 12 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 On the basis of above details, the assessee was show caused as to why the above mentioned amounts may not be added to assessee's total income for respective A.Y.s in lieu of unaccounted cash deposits. 4.2 The assessee in response to the show-cause notice submitted reply dated 11 th September 2021 which is reproduced as under: "Your good self has asked to justify amount of Rs.2,00,000. At the outset, we clarify state that nowhere on the loose paper the term "cash" has been mentioned. Further, the said noting is related to loan given to Hiren Deputy HUF by assessee group concern at certain point of time. Ledger Account of Hiren Deputy HUF from the books of assessee group concern is attached herewith vide Annexure-4 for your good self's perusal. Accordingly, in view of above given facts and submission alleged amount of Rs.2,00,000 should not be added to the total income of assessee.” 4.3 Finding and Conclusion: The submission of assessee has been carefully examined but the same is not found acceptable. In the statement recorded during the course of Search, Mr. Jatin Shah, Mr. Anshul Shah, Mr. Darshan Shah and Mr.Hardik Shah have admitted that the assessee has received the said cash deposit from Hiren deputy which is unaccounted in the books of the assessee. The relevant part of the statement is reproduced below: In view of the above facts, it is established that the assessee has received cash deposit during FY 2016-17 amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- which is not recorded in the books of the assessee and the same is liable to be treated as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee and added to the total income of assessee for AY 2017-18. Provisions of section 115BBE is applicable to this addition. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act are separately initiated.” 13 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 22. With respect to the addition made on account of cash deposit, therefore, there is a document found which has been admitted in the statement recorded during search to represent unaccounted cash deposits. The statement has never been retracted. Therefore, for all purposes, with respect to the issue of unaccounted cash deposits, there was sufficient incriminating material on account of which addition under Section 153A of the Act was tenable in law. Therefore, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the impugned addition was not based on any incriminating material is rejected. 23. Next addition made relates to bogus salary of Rs.35,000/-. This addition has been made in AY 2018-19 and the assessment order reveals that it was based on material found on non-electronic seized material found during search revealing salary paid to various persons which was admitted to be bogus by Mr. Jatin Shah, Mr. Darshan Shah and Mr. Anshul Shah. The statements are reproduced at page Nos. 7 & 8 of the assessment order. In line with our reasoning for unaccounted cash deposits held to be based on incriminating material found during search as above, we hold that this disallowance of bogus salary was also based on incriminating material found during search, comprising of documents found revealing salary paid to certain persons which was admitted to be bogus in the statement recorded during search. The addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we hold that, survives and the argument of ld. Counsel for the assessee in this regard is dismissed. 24. The last issue pertains to the disallowance of donation expenses of Rs.7,50,000/-. With respect to the same, we find that the documents found during search reflected donation paid by the assessee to Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- during the 14 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 impugned year. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer noting that CBDT vide Circular No. F. No.225/351/2018-ITA(II) dated 14.12.2018 had circulated information regarding bogus donation racket under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act mentioning the aforesaid entity as one of the entities involving in bogus donation racket. Therefore, based on the documents found during the search, coupled with the information in the possession of the Assessing Officer, the donations were held to be bogus in nature. We find that the addition was made based on incriminating material found during search. The Assessing Officer was already in possession of information that Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust was involved in bogus donation racket and he found documents during search at the assessee’s premises revealing that the assessee had made donation to such entity. Therefore, there was material incriminating enough to make addition in assessment framed under Section 153A of the Act. The argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, that the addition was not based on any incriminating material is rejected. 25 In view of the above, we conclude by holding that the disallowance of commission expenses holding them to be bogus was not based on any incriminating material found during the search; while the remaining addition/disallowance relating to unaccounted cash deposits, bogus salary and bogus donation are all found to be made based on incriminating material found during search. 26. As a result, the additions made in AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17 relating to only bogus commission expenses are deleted and the appeals of the assessee are allowed. For AY 2017-18, the addition made on account of bogus commission expenses is deleted while that on account of unaccounted cash 15 IT(SS)A Nos. 16-19/Ahd/2022 Venus Corporation Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 deposits is confirmed. For AY 2018-19, the addition made on account of bogus commission expenses is deleted, while that on account of bogus salary and bogus donation is confirmed. 27. In the result, the appeals of assessee for AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17 are allowed, while that for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/11 /2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 17/11/2023 **bt आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश क琉 क琉क琉 क琉 灹ितिलिप 灹ितिलिप灹ितिलिप 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत अ灡ेिषतअ灡ेिषत अ灡ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸 अपीलाथ牸अपीलाथ牸 अपीलाथ牸 / The Appellant 2. 灹瀄यथ牸 灹瀄यथ牸灹瀄यथ牸 灹瀄यथ牸 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत संबंिधतसंबंिधत संबंिधत आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर आयु猴 आयु猴आयु猴 आयु猴 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर आयु猴 आयु猴आयु猴 आयु猴)अपील अपीलअपील अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय िवभागीयिवभागीय िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध 灹ितिनिध灹ितिनिध 灹ितिनिध ,आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीयअपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण,/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड榁 गाड榁गाड榁 गाड榁 फाईल फाईलफाईल फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसारआदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY सहायक सहायकसहायक सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकारपंजीकार पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीयअपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation ......27.10.2023........ 1. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member :.....27.10.2023/16.11.2023 2. Other Member......16.11.2023.................. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S...16.11.2023... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement...17.11.2023... 5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S......17.11.2023............. 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk......17.11.2023.......... 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk....... 8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order............ 9. Date of Despatch of the Order..................