The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Sarthav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 187/AHD/2018

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals and cross objections related to the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16, concerning the additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unaccounted cash receipts and unsecured loans. The Income Tax Department (Revenue) challenged the decisions of the CIT(A) which favored the assessee, M/s. Sarthav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., by deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal examined the legal and factual basis of the additions and the deletions, considering the principles of natural justice, the adequacy of the evidence provided, and the precedents set by earlier judgments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135633 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd [2016] 75 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta), Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra [2004] 141 Taxman 574 (Allahabad), CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 387 ITR 529 (Gujarat), Rohini Builders vs CIT reported in 76 TTJ 532, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. RSA DIGI Prints [2017] 387 ITR 529 (Gujarat), Muriidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT [2004] 280 ITR 512, ITO vs. Diza Holdings (P) Ltd. [1993] 255 ITR 573, CIT vs. Dharmadev Finance [2016] 72 taxmann.com 395, CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 473 (Gujarat), Commissioner of income tax- Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. [2010] 194 TAXMAN 43 (DELHI), CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd. [2009] 330 ITR 603 (Del.), CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd. [2009] 330 ITR 298 (Del.), CIT vs. D & H Enterprises [2016] 72 taxmann.com 9, CIT vs. Crystal Networks (P.) Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 432 (Calcutta), CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1980] 159 ITR 78
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Revised return; Documents seized; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 68; 69; 132; 144; 44AD; 40A(3); 143(3); 133A; 153A; 40(a)(ia); 69A; 208; 264; 192; 43; 73; 72; 13

Judgement Text

आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपी अपीअपी अपीलीय लीयलीय लीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr.No. IT(SS)A No. Asstt. Year Name of Appellant Name of Respondent 1-14 IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.64 to 70/Ahd/2019 (2009-10 to 2015-16) D.C.I.T, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad M/s. Sarthav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 203, Abhilship Complex, Judges Bunglows Road. Nr. Vishweshwar Mahadev Vas, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN : AALCS1605D 15-18. IT(SS)A No.147- 148-149- 150/Ahd/2018 2011-12 & (2013-14 to 2015-16) M/s. Sarthav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 203, Abhiship Complex, Judges Bunglows Road. Nr. Vishweshwar Mahadev Vas, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN : AALCS1605D D.C.I.T, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Dhiren Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, C.I.T.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/D a t e o f H e a r i n g : 2 1 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 3 घोषणा क तारीख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 2 8 / 0 2 / 2 0 2 3 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: The above appeals have been filed by the Assessee and the Revenue and COs are also filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 2 Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, arising in the matter of the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2015-16. Since, the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, we proceed to dispose of all the appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First we take up the ITA No. 185/AHD/2018, an appeal by the Revenue for the AY 2009-10 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on issue of unsecured loans holding that no incriminating material was found in search on this issue without appreciating that first proviso to section 153A clearly mandated AO to assess or re-assess total income or each year falling within section 153A(1)(a)? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, while concluding the assessment following the notice issued under section 153A(1)(a) of the Act, is it necessary that any incriminating material ought to have been unearthed in the search under section 132 of the Act to make any additions to the returns filed by the assessee following notice under section153A(1)(a)? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1^,5^5,00,000/^Qn issue of unsecured loans without appreciating that assessee had not proved genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders in so much that interest-free unsecured loans taken from Raju Barter entities (Rajshah Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Labdhi Finance) were found to be unexplained since their own funds were accommodation entries sourced from Shirish Chandrakant Shah and other accommodation entry providers, that Adi Corporation and Sarvashanti Properties had meager or nil incomes and also that, considering their names reflected also reflected in unaccounted cash transactions in seized data 'CCCCC' sheet, genuineness was not proved. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in noting in para 4.2.3 of his order that the Assessing Officer had not mentioned returned income of Sarvashanti Properties for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 in page 99 of the assessment order even though the A.O. has mentioned the income for both these assessment years as '0' (Nil) in the table on this page. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,55,00,000/- without appreciating that for unsecured loans including those from Rajshah Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Labdhi Finance since the transaction was unexplained both in hands of creditor as well as assessee, the addition in both cases is justified in view of case laws in Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd [2016] 75 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta) and Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra [2004] 141 Taxman 574 IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 3 (Allahabad) as section 68 and 69 are deeming provisions and effect to both sections has to be given separately in hands of both creditor and assessee. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ClT{A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 7. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act representing the amount of loan. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of real estate development under the name and style of its brand known as ‘Abhisheeri and Sarthav’. The assessee has undertaken various real estate development project during the period of AYs 2009-10 to 2015-16 which are known as under:- i) Abhishree Avenue Commercial complex ii) Abhishree Corporate parl Individual Commercial Unit iii) Abhishree Adroit Commercial Complex iv) Abhiree Residency-III Residential Plot Scheme v) Abhishree Orchad Residential unit scheme at village kolat vi) Abhishree Ecostead Residential Plot scheme at Unali which got abandoned due to the Government Policy. 4.1 The assessee was subject to search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act which was carried out at its business premises dated 4 December 2014 and subsequent dates. As a result of search, an electronic data was seized from the office of the assessee, containing the booking details of various projects, documented sale price, member description etc as detailed under: Sr.No Name of the file Sheet Remarks 1. Member Details.xls Sale Deed Details of members and sale Deeds Executed of Abhishree Corporate part on 30.09.2013 IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 4 2. Member Details.xls Corporate Details of members and sale deeds executed of Abhishree corporate park 3. Member Details/xls Orchard I Details of members of Abhishree Orchard Sector-I as on 18.06.2013 4 Member Details.xls Orchard II Details of members of Abhishree Orchard Sector-II 18.06.2013 5 Member Details.xls Orchard III Details of members of Abhishree Orchard Sector III 18.06.2013 6 Member Details.xls AR III Details of member of Abhishree Residency –III on 31.03.2013 7 Member Details.xls Avenue Details of member of Abhishree Avenue 8 Member Detail 25.04.2014 Avenue-1 Details of member of Abhishree Avenue. 9 Member Detail- 25.04.2014 Sheet 1 Member details of Abhishree Adroit as on 04.01.2014 10 Member Detail- 25.04.2014 For Bank 25.04.2014 Member details of Abhishree Adroit as on 25.04.2014 11 Member Detail 25.04.2014 Unsold- 25.04.2014 List of unsold units of Abhishree Adroit as on 25.04.2014 4.2 Likewise, there were also simultaneous search and seizure operations carried out at the Barter Group dated 4 December 2014 and subsequent dates. This search comprises various companies, related persons, directors related to the barter group. It was revealed in the search proceedings that the barter group was mainly engaged in the stock market operations and manipulations. As a result of search at different places of the Barter Group, there were found many documents of incriminating nature. The details of the persons along with their addresses wherefrom the documents were seized which were of incriminating in nature and simultaneously belonging to the assessee and the relationship with the assessee are detailed on pages 2 and 3 of the assessment order. 5. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has taken unsecured loan in the assessment year 2009-10 to 2015-16 from certain parties who are mainly the directors/promoters of the assessee company and their IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 5 related entities/ parties such as HUF, family members or firms. The names of the lenders were also appearing in the documents being excel sheet seized during the course of search and seizure operation. It was also found by the AO that there was the cash deposit in the bank account of the impugned parties. 5.1 The AO likewise further found that the assessee to justify the unsecured loan has merely furnished the copy of the PAN which is not sufficient to justify the creditworthiness of the loan creditors. Similarly, the assessee has also not filed confirmation from any of the loan parties. 5.2 On question by the AO, the assessee vide letter dated 20 th December 2016 made submission before the AO that most of the loan creditors are assessed with the office of the same AO and the relevant documents were already available with the concerned AO. Thus, there cannot be raised any doubt with respect to the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. 5.3 The assessee also contended that all the loans were received through the banking channel which were supported based on the confirmation wherever available, income tax returns. Thus, no doubt can be raised on such loans received by it in different assessment years. 5.4 It was also pointed out by the assessee that the regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act has already been carried out and all the relevant details of the loan parties such as creditworthiness, genuineness of transaction and the proof of identity were furnished. 5.5 The assessee further submitted that there were many parties which have given loan to Shri Atul Shah & his related entities such as Rajshah Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Deesa Tie-up Ltd., Three C Survey Pvt. Ltd. and Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd. and these parties were also assessed under the same jurisdiction where the IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 6 assessee was assessed. Therefore, no doubt can be raised upon the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. 5.6 However the AO was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that seized documents establish the fact that on money in cash was received by the assessee against its several project which were layered into the bank account of the loan parties before transferring the loan to the assessee. The details provided in the seized document and cash deposited in the loan parties were matching with each other. The amount of cash deposit was also not offered in the income tax return of the respective parties. As such the assessee does not get immunity from the burden to explain the sources of credit in the proceedings under section 153A merely on the reasoning that certain document explaining the credit in the books was available during the regular proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. 5.7 The AO further observed that addition made in the hand of creditors does not mean that the assessee gets immunity under section 68 of the Act or will lead to double taxation. As such, the assessee is liable to explain the source of credit in its books based on cogent material and in case of failure to explain satisfactorily, the addition is bound to be made. The AO in this respect also referred the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs. Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd. 5.8 It was also observed by the AO that specific question was raised for explanation of credit in the books under section 68 of the Act in background of cash deposited in the bank of the lender/creditor. But other than PAN, no detail such as copy of ITR, confirmation, bank statement was submitted except for ITR/ confirmation submitted in case of some family concerns/ individual that too from AY 2012-13 onwards. Regarding cash deposit in the bank account of different parties, the assessee expressed its inability to explain the nature of the transactions on the reasoning that the bank slips are missing. The entire focus of IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 7 the assessee to shift its burden on the revenue without discharging initial onus cast on it (the assessee). 5.9 Thus, the AO in view of the above, worked out the year wise amount of unsecured loan and treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 12.55 crores was added to the total income of the assessee in the year under consideration. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A). 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that during the year it has received unsecured loan of Rs. 12.55 crores from four parties detailed as under: 1. Adi Corporation Rs. 2 Crores 2. Rajesh Enterprises Rs. 6.05 Crores 3. Labdhi Finance Rs. 2 Crores 4. Saravshanti Properties Pvt Ltd. Rs. 2.5 crores 7.1 The assessee claimed that all the amount of loan were received through banking channel which can be verified form the bank statement and ledger account furnished during the assessment proceeding, besides the copy of confirmation and PAN which were also furnished during the assessment proceedings. 7.2 It was further submitted that the major amount of loan was received from the parties namely M/s Rajesh Enterprise and Labdhi Finance which belongs to barter group alias Shri Atul Hiralal Shah. Both the parties fall under the jurisdiction of same AO, where the appellant assessee has been assessed and both these parties were also subject to proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Thus all the records/ documents with respect these two parties namely M/s Rajesh Enterprise and Labdhi Finance were available before the AO, therefore primary IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 8 onus was discharged by the assessee. Further, these two parties have declared income to the tune of Rs. 40,54,220/- and Rs. 17,68,380/- and were also having sufficient fund in the form of capital, reserve & surplus and borrowed fund. Thus, the credit worthiness of these parties were also got established during the assessment proceedings. 7.3 Likewise, the sum of Rs. 2 crore was received from M/s Adi Corporation as temporary loan due to shortage of fund which was paid back within a period of two week. The identity of the party has already been provided by furnishing copy of PAN, further the genuineness and credit worthiness also cannot be doubted due to the fact that amount was received and paid back through banking channel. 7.4 Without prejudice the assessee also submitted that the year under consideration is unabated assessment year under the provision of section 153A as the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act has already been finalized where genuineness of unsecured loan was accepted. Thus, the unabated/completed assessment can only be disturbed by the incriminating materials found during the course of search proceeding. However, no such material brought on record by the AO therefore no addition can be made on the issue which has been finalized in the original assessment. The assessee in support of its contention relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in 387 ITR 529. 8. The learned CIT(A) after considering the facts in totality deleted the addition made by the AO on ground of law as well as on merit by observing as under: The appellant's arguments are in two fold. Firstly on the basis of the legal contention that during the course of search proceedings, in the case of appellant at the__qffice premises and from the residence of the directors of the appellant, no incriminating material was found in respect of unsecured loan of the aforesaid unsecured loan parties for which the aggregate addition of Rs. -12,55,00,0007- has been made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act and the appellant company further contended that during the course of IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 9 assessment proceedings also, the AO has not brought on record any incriminating material in respect of addition made by the AO for unsecured ioan received during the year under consideration from the aforesaid four parties and therefore as the regular assessment order was already passed for A.Y. 2009-10 u/s, 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.11.2011 and it got concluded before the date of search in the case of the appellant on 04.12.2014 and there was no incriminating msteris! found during the course of search proceedings, such concluded assessment cannot be disturbed by the Assessing Officer for making an addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Actjn.j'ssp.ect pf ioan received during jhe year under consideration from the aforesaid parties aggregating to "Rsl 12,55,00,0007-. The appellant has relied upon the decision of Hgn'ble jurisdictionai GlijaraJLHigh Cgurt_jn_th8__gase of Pr. CIT-4 vis Saumya Construction Pvt.Ltci [20171 387 ITR 529, other High Courts and Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal as well as other- Tribunals in its written submission filed during the course of appeal hearing. The appellant also contended that the said legal contention was also taken up before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings in its written submission filed before the AO and the AO without considering the aforesaid legal contention of the appellant as well as without identifying any of the incriminating seized material regarding the addition made for unexplained cash credit for the loan received during the year under consideration from the four parties has made the addition in the assessment order rendered u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1)(b) of the Act which is not tenable under the law. From the perusal of the assessment order, it reveals the fact that the AO has not identified any of the seized material and/or incriminating material found and seized during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration from the four parties as stated above. On going through case laws relied upon by the appellant, it is found that the appellant's case is clearly covered by the above mentioned judgments. As the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was rendered by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2011 before the'date of search in the case of the appellant on 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 12,55,00,0007- is not justified. The appellant's case is found covered by the following binding judgements of higher authorities :- i) CIT Vs. Saumya Construction Pvt Ltd (Tax appeal No. 24 of 2016) 81 taxmann.com 292 dated 14th March 2016 ii) Rohini Builders v/s CIT reported in 76 TTJ 532 ii) The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of M/s Riddhi Siddhi Corporation ITA no 2248/Ahd/2012 dated 20/02/2017 iv) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. RSA DIGI Prints vide Tax Appeal No: 503 of 2017 dated 06/09/2017 v) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of MuriidharLahorimal vs. CIT, 280 ITR 512 vi) Gauhati High court in case of. NEMI CHAND KOTHARI VS CIT 264 ITR 254 vii) Kerala High Court decision in ITO v. Diza Holdings (P) Ltd. (255 ITR 573) viii) Gujarat High Court in case of Dharmadev Finance in 43 taxmann.com 395 42 taxmann.com IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 10 ix) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of PratapbhaiVirjibhai PatelVs. Income Tax Officer[2014] 45 taxmann.com 151 x) Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 473 (Gujarat) xi) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax- Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd.[20"10] 194 TAXMAN 43 (DELHI) xii) CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd., 330 ITR 603 (Del.) xiri) C!T vs. Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 (Del.) xlv) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of PC!T Vs. D & H Enterprises[2016] 72 iaxmann.com 9i xv) Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Crystal Networks (P.) Ltd.Vs. Commissioner of !ncome-iaxr2013] 35 ia.xmann.Gom 432 (Ca'cutts) xvi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CITv. Orissa Corporation P, Ltd. (159 ITR 78} As the facts of this case are identical to the facts of the above mentioned case laws the additions of Rs.12,55,00,000/- made by the AO are deleted. 4.2.1 On perusal of the details of unsecured loan parties, it is noticed that the AO has made the addition on account of unsecured loan received from Rajshah Enterprise Pvt.Ltd for an amount of Rs. 6,05,00,000/'- and in respect of unsecured loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- received from M/s Labdhi Finance (Prop. Atul Hiralal Shah),-the identity of the parlies are duly established as both lender parties assessments, were before the AO who was the AO of the appellant. The case of Rajshah Enterprise Pvt.Ltd and M/s. Labdhi Finance were also covered u/s. 153A of the Act by the AO of the appellant company and therefore, all the details about their return of income, books of accounts and bank statements as we!! as other details which are required to prove the identity of the depositors were already available on the record of the AO. The AO on Page 9S of the assessment order has prepared a chart of lender parties under the heading " Name of Entity, PAN No and returned income" for A. Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16 and in respect of Rajshah Enterprise Pvt.Ltd, the AO has stated the PAN No and returned income for A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2015- 16 and in respect of Rajshah Enterprise Pvt.Ltd., the AO has stated the PAN and returned income at Rs. 40,54,220/- and from perusal of the audited balance sheet of Rajshah Enterprise Pvt.Ltd, as on 31.03.2009, which has been placed by the appellant company from the website of Registrar of Companies, the said company Rajshah Enterprise Pvi.Ltd is having the share capital and reseryes_afid_siirpjijs iojhe^ ijjne_of_Rs^ 29,87,08,751A, hence, the identity of Rajshah Enterprise Pvt.Ltd and its creditworthiness has been duly established. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of unsecured loan of Rs. 6,05,00,0007-received from Rajshah Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration by the appellant company on the basis of the facts of the case as discussed above is not justified and hereby directed to be deleted. Similarly, in respect of M/s. Labdhi Finance, which is a proprietary concern of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah, who was also subject to search on 04.12.2014 and the case of M7s. Labdhi Finance, Prop. Atul Hiralal Shah is also before the AO of the appellant company' and therefore, the details of books of accounts of M7s. Labdhi Finance and its bank statements, return of income and all other necessary details to examine the identity of the depositor and creditworthiness of the depositor were already on the assessment records of IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 11 the AO. The AO on Page 99 of the assessment order, stated the details of M7s. Labdhi Finance PAN and returned income of for A.Y. 2009"-10 for an amount of Rs. 17,58,3807-. Therefore, the identity depositor and creditworthiness is proved from the total income filed by M/s. Labdhi Finance which proves genuineness of the unsecured loan received by the appellant for an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- during the year under consideration. M/s. Labdhi Finance is prop concern of Shri Atul H. Shah, in whose hands, the AO himself had made additions of more than Rs. 800 crore for AY 2008-09 which prove identity, genuineness & creditworthiness. Hence, the addition made by the AO for an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan received from M/s. Labdhi Finance is not justified and the same is hereby deleted. 4.2.2, That in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration for an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- from M/s. Adi Corporation, the AO has stated on Page 99 of the assessment order, the details of PAN, returned income for A.Y. 2009-10 at Rs.6.84.700/- and from the details of income declared by M/s. Adi Corporation for A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2015-16 as stated by the AO on Page 99 of the assessment order in the case of M7s. Adi Corporation, the identity of the depositor and creditworthiness of the depositor is getting established. That from verification of the ledger account of M/s. Adi Corporation, the appellant company received the unsecured loan during the year under consideration for an amount of Rs. 2,00.00.000/- on 23.07.2008 and the same_ has been repaid on 06.08.2008 and as stated by the appellant, receipt of unsecured loan and repayment of unsecured loan from M/s. Adi Corporation was through account payee cheque from the regular bank account on the the basis of the facts about M/s. Adi Corporation, I am of the view that the identity of the depositor and creditworthiness of the depositor M/s, Adi Corporation has been duly fulfilled. Therefore, She addition made by the AO for an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan received by the appellant company during the year under consideration from M/s. Adi Corporation is directed to be deleted. 4.2.3. In respect of the unsecured loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- received by the appellant from Sarvashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd.. the appellant company has stated that the same has been received by account payee cheque and the confirmation of the said company was also placed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO has also on Page 99 of the assessment order has stated about Sarvashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd., its PAN No and return of income filed for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15 and the AO has not stated about returned income for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2015-16. As per the details stated by the AO on Page 99 of the assessment order, ihe company Sarvashanti Properties Pvt.Ltd is filing return of income. The appellant company has also placed on record the contra confirmation of the said party Sarvashanti Properties Pvt.Ltd. Keeping in view the received as unsecured loan during the year under consideration by the appellant from Sarvashanti Properties Pvt.Ltd. Keeping in view the discussion above, the addition made by the AO in respect of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 12,55, 00, 000/- is not found justified and hence, deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs. 12,55,00,000/- whereas the assessee CO in favor of the decision of learned CIT-A for Rs.12,55,00,000/-. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 12 10. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 64/Ahd/2019 reads as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly held that "as the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was rendered by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2011 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 12,55,00,000/~ is not justified". 2. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit, after carefully considering the facts of the case,' various details submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the depositor parties namely Adi Corporation, Rajshah Enterprise Pvt.Ltd., Labdhi Finance and Sarvashanti well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 12,55,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 11. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order whereas the ld. AR vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order. 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, there was search proceeding under section 132 of the Act dated 4 th December 2014 (i.e. during the financial year 2014-15 corresponding to A.Y. 2015-16), carried out in the case of the assessee and accordingly proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated for the AYs 2009-10 to 2014-15. The assessment under section 153A r.w.s. section 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 was framed after making addition of Rs. 12.55 crores for unsecured loan treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition made by the AO on ground law as well as on ground of merit. While deleting the addition on the ground of law, the learned CIT(A) found that there was no material of incriminating nature found in the IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 13 course of the search. Therefore, the year under consideration being unabated/completed assessment year, any addition made in the absence of incriminating material is not justified. The learned DR before us vehemently argued that there is no provision under section 153A which restricts the assessment or reassessment in case of search to the extent of incriminating material only. 12.1 In this regard we find that it has been settled by various Hon’ble Court including Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court that the completed assessment cannot be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material/ documents whereas the assessment/ reassessment can be made with respect to abated assessment years. The word 'assess' in Section 153-A of the Act is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to the completed assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Saumya Construction (supra) has held that there cannot be any addition of regular items shown in the books of accounts until and unless there were certain materials of incriminating nature found during the course of search. The word incriminating has not been defined under the Act but it refers to those materials/ documents/ information which were collected during the search proceedings and not produced in the original assessment proceedings. Simultaneously, these documents had bearing on the total income of the assessee. Now coming to the case, we note that there was no incriminating document relating to unsecured loan found during the search which would have made basis for the addition in the assessment. 12.2 At the time of hearing, the learned DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the finding of the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, we hold that there cannot be any addition of the regular items which were disclosed by the assessee in the regular books of accounts. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held as under: IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 14 Thus, while in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. In case no incriminating material is found, the earlier assessment would have to be reiterated. 12.3 In view of the above we hold that there cannot be any addition to the total income of the assessee of the regular items as made by the AO in the present case. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A). Hence, we uphold the same. As we have held that there cannot be any addition of regular items to the total income of the assessee which have only been disclosed in the return of income with respect to unabated assessment proceedings, admittedly the additions/disallowances made by the AO represent the regular items. Therefore, it is directed to the AO to delete the addition made by him. Thus, the technical ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 13. Without prejudice to the above finding on technical ground, we decided to proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the Revenue on merit also. The fact on the merit has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph therefore we are not inclined to repeat the same for the sake brevity. The provision of Section 68 of the Act fastens the liability on the assessee to provide the identity of the lenders, establish the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. These liabilities on the assessee were imposed to justify the cash credit entries under Section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. reported in 208 ITR 465 wherein it was held as under: “It was for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. On the facts of this case, the Tribunal did not take into account all these ingredients which had to be satisfied by the assessee. Mere furnishing of the particulars was not enough. “ 13.1 Now first we proceed to understand the identity of the party. The identity of the party refers existence of such party which can be proven based on IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 15 evidences. As such the identity of a party can be established by furnishing the name, address and PAN detail, bank details, ITR etc. 13.2 The next stage comes to verify the genuineness of the transaction. Genuineness of transaction refers what has been asserted is true and authentic. A genuine transaction must be proved to be genuine in all respect not merely on a piece of a paper. The documentary evidences should not be a mask to cover the actual transaction or designed in way to present the transaction as true but same is not. Genuineness of transaction can be proved by submitting confirmation of the parties along the details of mode of transaction but merely showing transaction carried out through banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness. As such the same should also be proved by circumstantial surrounding evidences as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and in case of Smt. Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801. The last stage comes to verify the creditworthiness of the parties. The term creditworthiness as per Black Law Dictionary refers as: "creditworthy, adj. (1924) (Of a borrower) financially sound enough that a lender will extend credit in the belief default is unlikely; fiscally healthy-creditworthiness.” 13.3 Similarly in The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, the word "creditworthy" has been defined as under:- "creditworthy, adj. of one who is a good risk as a borrower." 13.4 It the duty of the assessee to establish that creditor party has capacity to advance such loan and having requisite fund in its books of account and banks. The capacity to advance loan can be established by showing sufficient income, capital and reserve or other funds in the hands of creditor. It is required by the AO to find out the financial strength of the creditor to advance loan with judicious approach and in accordance with materials available on record but not in arbitrary and mechanical manner. 13.5 In the light of the above discussion, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on hand. We find that during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act, the IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 16 details such as copy of PAN, ledger account and confirmation from creditor and other detail were available before the AO. However, the AO without pointing out any deficiency in the above primary document held that the assessee failed to explain the genuineness of the credit of unsecured loan. The view of the AO was based on the fact that during the search proceeding certain excel sheet and print out of the same were found which were containing details of unaccounted cash received by the assessee against its ongoing projects. The unaccounted cash were utilized for making deposit in the bank of individual and entities controlled by the assessee group and same amount layered in to bank of the assessee in the form of unsecured loan. However, we find the transaction recorded in alleged excel sheet relates to different period i.e. FY 2010-11 corresponding AY 2011-12, therefore in our considered view no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee based on such sheet in the year under consideration. 13.6 Moving further we find that major amount being Rs. 6.05 crores and Rs. 2 crores were credited from the parties namely Rajesh Enterprise Pvt Ltd and Labdhi Finance (a proprietary concern of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah), these two parties were also subject to the same search proceeding and subject to the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the identity of these two parties were proved beyond doubt. The assesse has furnished copy of confirmation from these parties, transaction was carried out through banking channel, and other details such as books of account financial statement etc. were available before the AO. The AO has not pointed out any defect in these materials, thus the genuineness of transaction was also got fulfilled. These two parties have declared substantial income regularly in the return and also having fund in the form of capital, reserved & surplus. Thus, the credit worthiness was also established. 13.7 Likewise, the amount of Rs. 2 crores credited from M/s Adi Corporation, we find that copy of PAN and contra ledger confirmation was available before the AO. The amount was taken due to temporary shortage of fund which was paid back in the year under consideration itself. Once the amount received through banking IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 17 channel and repayment of the same was also made through banking channel then the genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted. In this respect, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Rohini builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein it was held as under: “The genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques.” 13.8 Coming to the amount received from the party namely Saravshanti Properties Pvt Ltd., once again we find that copy of PAN and confirmation along with ledger copy was furnished before the AO. The said company is regularly filing return of income as the AO himself discussed the return filed by such party for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15. However, the AO has not mentioned anything about A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2015-16. The AO did not find any infirmity in these documents. Considering these facts, we find that the assessee has discharged primary onus cast under section 68 of the Act. If AO was having any reservation, he was empowered to carry out investigation from the party itself but the AO without carrying out such enquiry held the credit from the party namely Saravshanti Properties Pvt Ltd as unexplained which is not justified. In view of the above elaborated discussion and after considering the facts in totality, we hereby held that the assessee on merit has discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Thus, the ground of appeal of the Revenue on merit is also hereby dismissed. 13.9 With respect to the CO, raised by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 13.10 In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 18 Now coming CO to No. 64/AHD/2019 an appeal by the assessee for the AY 2009-10 14. The assessee has raised the following objection: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly held that "as the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was rendered by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2011 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 12,55,00,000/~ is not justified". 2. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit, after carefully considering the facts of the case,' various details submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the depositor parties namely Adi Corporation, Rajshah Enterprise Pvt.Ltd., Labdhi Finance and Sarvashanti well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 12,55,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. Your respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modfy, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of cross objection. 15. At the outset, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 16. In the result, the CO raised by the assessee is dismissed. Now coming to ITA No. 186/AHD/2018 an appeal by the Revenue for the AY 2010-11 17. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,60,00.000/- on issue of cash receipts for Land located at IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 19 Unali (no-development Zone mentioned as 'SEZ' in seized material) since the relied upon seized document had entries of both unaccounted cash and cheque from Neminath Trades Pvt Ltd (which matched with books of assessee), the term 'Kaka' mentioned in seized document was established to be found in other documents also, seized from share-holder directors of assessee (Dharmen Sutaria & Sanjay Sutaria) in reference to the said land at Unali. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C!T(A) erred in deleting the addition made on issue of unsecured loans holding that no incriminating material was found in search on this issue without appreciating that first proviso to section 153A clearly mandates AO to assess or reassess total income of each year falling within section 153A(1)(a). 3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the fact !hat while concluding the assessment following the notice issued under Section 153A(1)(a) of the Act, is it necessary that any incriminating material ought to have been unearthed in the search under Section 132 of the Act to make any additions to the returns filed by the assessee following notice under Section 153A(1)(a';? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,08,00,000/- on issue of unsecured loans & advances without appreciating that assessee had not proved genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders for interest-fate unsecured loans taken from Raju Barter entities (Rajshah Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Nemintah Trades Pvt Ltd) were found to be unexplained and were accommodation entries sourced from Shirish Chandrakant Shah and other accommodation entry providers, that Adi Corporation. Kalpesh Patel, Shreeji exports and Ajay Mahendrakumar Shah had meager or nil incomes, and also that, considering their names reflected also reflected in unaccounted cash transactions in seized data. 'CCCCC' sheet, genuineness was not proved. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)'s order is erroneous in holding that amount received from A/ay Mahendrakumar Shah was advance for land/project since it is inconsistent with facts on record as annexure-IV of assessee's Tax audit report and page no. 132 of assessee's own submissions dated 26/10/2010. received by AC on 27/10/2016. clearly reflect that this amount was 'unsecured loan'- 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C/TfAJ's order is erroneous in holding that amount of Rs. 4.08.0Q : 000/-received from Ajay Mahendrakumar Shah was not to be added back u/s 68 just because it was advance for land/project without appreciating that section 68 does not differentiate between advances and unsecured loans since both are credits in books of assesses and have to be treated on par and assessee had not proved the creditworthiness and genuineness of this transaction. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CiT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,08 00, 000/- without appreciating that for unsecured loans & advances including those from Rajshah Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Neminath Trades Pvt Ltd since the transaction was unexplained both in hands of creditor as well as assessee, the addition in both cases is justified in view of case laws in Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd [2016] 75 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta) and Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra [2004] 141 Taxman 574 (Allahabad) as sections 68 & 69 are deeming provisions and effect to both sections has to be given separately in hands of both creditor and assessee. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 20 8 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A O. be restored to the above extent 18. The first issue raised by the revenue in ground no. 1 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- representing receipt of cash for unali land(SEZ). 19. During the search proceedings, there were documents seized from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora bearing page numbers 4 of annexure A- 9, containing the details of payment in cheque and cash under the heading SEZ kaka wali jaggya. The name of M/s Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd was also recorded on the same page. The impugned page contains the details of payment made through cheque for Rs. 3,60,00,00/- and payment in cash of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. 19.1 However, the assessee in in respect of theses entries furnished that it (assessee) has not carried out such transactions and never purchased property at SEZ kaka wali jaggya. 19.2 The AO further on verification of the books of account of M/s Neminath Traders Private Limited have found that the cheque payment was duly recorded in tally data of M/s Neminath Traders Private Limited in the ledger of M/s Sarthav Infrastructure Private Limited. Thus, it is clear that these payment have been made by the barter group on account of such land. 19.3 Further, the documents seized from the premises of the directors contain information like KAKA as well as Land Clearance etc. at unali. This place is near to the place of Ecosted project of the assessee. Another seized document also refer the development issue of unali land. Therefore, the AO has taken a view that the cash payment of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- recorded on above discussed page is also true IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 21 and correct. The AO accordingly treated the sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as unaccounted receipt of the assessee for the AY 2010-11. 20. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the addition made by the AO on account of unaccounted cash receipt from M/s Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000/-, on the basis of seized page bearing no. 4 of annexure A-9 seized from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora, who is neither the director of the company nor the employee of the assessee company. Therefore, it cannot have any evidential value while framing the assessment in the case of assessee. Likewise, the name of the assessee is nowhere appearing in the impugned seized document. Similarly, the assessee has not purchased any land for SEZ purpose from any person named kaka wali jaggya. The assessee further submitted that The AO has not made any enquiry regarding the transaction from Shri Ashit Vora and not verified the transaction from the bank account of the assessee. The AO has alleged without any verification and examination of the facts of the case of the assessee. The assessee further submitted that the AO did not provide the statement of Shri Ashit Vora as well the opportunity of cross examination. 21. The assessee further submitted that such document was seized from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora, therefore, the provision of section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C are applicable on Shri Ashit vora who is the writer of such seized documents and he has a right to make rebuttal of such presumption. As such, the inference can be drawn against the Shri Ashit vora based on such seized document and not the assessee. 21.1 Further, the assessee submitted that Shri Atul Shah in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, and post search enquiry, admitted that documents seized from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora were written by Shri Ashit Vora and all the transactions contained therein were pertaining to and belonging to him (Shri Atul Shah). As such, Shri Atul Shah in post search proceeding IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 22 appeared before the DDIT (INV) and also submitted the peak balance after considering the transaction of the documents seized from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora. However, the DDIT rejected such working and worked out the cash transaction of approximately more than 500 crore in the hands of Shri Atul shah. Therefore, it is clear that these papers do not belong to the assessee and consequently, the addition made by the AO should be deleted. The assessee in support of its contention also relied on various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court and Tribunal. 21.2 The assessee also made the legal submissions in respect of the documents seized from the premises of other parties after making reference to the section 4 and section 34 of Indian Evidence Act. 22. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the addition made by AO of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- by observing that the assessee was not engaged in SEZ project. 22.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) also held that question of providing the opportunity of cross examination and statement of Shri Ashit vora is not relevant on this issue. Thus, in view of the above and after making reference to the judgments relied by the appellant, it was held by the ld. CIT-A that the addition made by the AO on account of SEZ project in the hands of assessee was not justified. 23. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT(A) Rs. 1,60,00,000/- whereas the assessee in CO has supported deletion of addition by CIT(A) of Rs 1,60,00,000/- IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 23 24. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 65/Ahd/ 2019 reads as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case, submission of the appellant as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted, the addition of alleged cash receipts Rs. 1,60,00,000/- on account of difference of G.P while holding that keeping in view the factual position and the binding judgments, he has given the findings that addition made by the AO on the basis of loose paper Page No. 4 of Annexure A/9 is not found justified and hence deleted. 25. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order whereas the learned AR before us vehemently supported the stand of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order. 26. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion we note certain facts as detailed below: i. That there was no project carried out by the assessee at SEZ. Had there been any project carried out by the assessee, the same would have been reflected in the financial statements of the assessee like any other project. ii. The alleged bank payment by the assessee has not been verified from the books of accounts of the assessee. iii. The addition of more than 500 crores has already been made in the hands of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah wherein the impugned seized document was considered and therefore, the same seized document cannot be used against the assessee. iv. No name of the assessee or its director is appearing in the seized documents. v. No 3 rd party information was obtained from the property office in order to find out whether any investment has been made by the assessee the impugned SEZ Project. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 24 26.1 Besides the above, admittedly, the document relating to the cash receipt was recovered from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora, thus the provisions of section 132(4A) read with section 292C provides the presumption that such documents belongs the searched party until and unless some nexus is established with the assessee. However we find that no such nexus was established based on corroborative documents. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT-A, and thus hold that no addition is warranted in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 26.2 With respect to the CO, raised by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 27. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 2 to 6 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,08,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 28. The assessee during the year under consideration has shown receipt of unsecured loan of Rs. 19,08,00,000/- from the different parties detailed as under: S. No. Name of creditor Amount in Rs. 1. Adi Corporation 2,00,00,000/- 2. Rajshah Ent Pvt Ltd 1,50,00,000/- 3. Kalpesh Patel 5,00,000/- 4. Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd 10,80,00,000/- 5. Sheerji Exports 75,00,000/- 6. Ajay Mahendrakumar Shah 4,08,00,000/- Total 19,08,00,000/- 29. The AO in the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act treated same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on the IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 25 same basis as held in the AY 2009-10 and added to the total income of the assessee. 30. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A) and reiterated its submission as made in the previous assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2009- 10 that no material of incriminating nature was found during the course of search proceedings with regard to unsecured loan. The regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration has been completed by order dated 08-03-2013 where the genuineness of the loan credit has been accepted on the strength of the details furnished by it. It is settled legal position that in the proceeding under section 153A of the Act, no addition or disallowances can be made in the completed assessment in the absence of incriminating material. Thus the addition made by the AO in the year under consideration on account of unsecured loan by treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is not sustainable. 30.1 The assessee without prejudice to the legal contention made submission on merit also by contending that during the year it has received unsecured loan of Rs. 2 crores, Rs. 5 Lakh, Rs. 75 Lakh and Rs. 4.08 crores from the parties namely Adi Corporation, Kalpesh Patel, Sherji Exports and Ajaykumar MahnedraKumar Shah respectively on temporary fund requirement basis. The loan amount from all these parties were received through banking channel which were returned back in few days or week through banking channel. In case of Shri Ajaykumar MahnedraKumar Shah, there was a running account providing fund to each other on requirement basis and indeed it has paid excess amount during the year which was shown as loan & advances. 30.2 The assessee with regard to unsecured loan of Rs. 10.7 crores and 1.5 crores from Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd and Rajshah Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. submitted that both the parties were part of search proceedings u/s 153A/153C of the Act and were falling under the jurisdiction of the same AO. Therefore, the identity of IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 26 both the parties got established beyond doubt. Further, it has discharged preliminary onus by furnishing ledger copy, confirmation copy, banks statements showing fund transferred through banking channel. The AO was having access to all the financial details of impugned parties which were available on the record of the AO. From the audited balance sheet of Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd it can be verified that the party was having funds of Rs. 27.03 crore in forms of share capital, share application money and share premium. Similarly, the party namely Rajshah Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. has declared income of Rs. 4,12,63,340/- and also having funds of Rs. 63.59 crores in forms of share capital, reserved & surplus and share application money. Therefore the allegation of the AO that identity, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of the parties was not established is devoid of any merit. 31. The learned CIT (A) after considering the facts in totality deleted the addition made by the AO on legal ground as well as on facts. 32. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, he revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs.19,08,00,000/- whereas the assessee in CO supported the decision of learned CIT-A. 33. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 65/Ahd/2019 reads as under: 2. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly held.Jhat_"as the assessment order for A.Y. 2010-11 was rendered by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 08.03.2013 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on\ 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 19,08,00,000/- is not justified". 3. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit 1 after carefully considering the fats of the case, various details submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity, creditworthiness and IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 27 genuineness of the unsecured loan parties namely (i) Adi Corporation, Rajshah Enterprise Pvt.Ltd, (iii) Kalpesh Patel, (iv) Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd, (v) Shreeji Exports and (vi) Ajay Mahendrakumar Shah as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 19,08,00,QOO/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 34. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order whereas, on the contrary, the learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order. 35. We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the appellant assessee in the year under consideration received unsecured loan of Rs. 19.08 crores from 6 different parties and the details of the same has been reproduced somewhere in previous paragraphs. The AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and made addition to the total income of the assessee which came to be deleted by the learned CIT(A) on legal ground as well on merit of the case. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 35.1 At outset we note that the AO in immediate previous year i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 has also treated the unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit under section 68 which was deleted by the learned CIT(A) on legal count that there was no incriminating material found in the search proceeding. Hence, in the absence of materials found in the search no addition can be made in case of completed assessment years. The Revenue against the finding of learned CIT(A) was in appeal before us vide IT(SS) No. 185/Ahd/2019 which we have decided vide paragraph no 12 to 12.3 of this order by upholding the finding of the learned CIT(A). In the year under consideration also, there is no change in facts and circumstances as far as legal issue is concerned. The learned CIT(A) has given categorical finding that the no incriminating material was found with respect to the unsecured loan. The learned DR before us has not been able to controvert the finding of the learned CIT(A). Thus, considering the fact that the year under IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 28 consideration is a completed assessment year, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). 36. Coming to the merit of the case. At the outset we note that in case of loan parties namely Adi Corporation, Kalpesh Patel, Sherji Exports and Ajaykumar MahnedraKumar Shah the loan amount were returned back in a couple of days or in week time or so through the banking channel. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 and also in case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji reported in 42 taxmann.com 251 no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) as far as deletion made by him with regard to loan received from the above mentioned parties i.e. Adi Corporation, Kalpesh Patel, Sherji Exports and Ajaykumar MahnedraKumar. 36.1 Moving forward to issue of deletion of addition by the learned CIT(A) on account of loan amount of Rs. 10.7 crores and Rs. 1.5 crores from the parties namely Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd. and Rajshah Enterprise Pvt Ltd. The identity of both these parties got established beyond doubt by the fact that both these parties are assessed under section 153A/53C of the Act by the same AO who has framed assessment in case of the appellant assessee. Further, the assessee furnished details such as ledger copy, confirmation of the parties and bank statement showing amount transferred through banking channel along with audited financial statement showing substantial funds in their respective financial statements. The AO was also having access to all these documentary evidences being the AO of the loan parties but no infirmity was pointed out by the AO in these preliminary evidences based on conclusive or corroborative materials. Thus, in our considered view, the assessee has duly discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act by placing the documentary evidences with respect to identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the parties. Further, under the provision of section 68 of the Act, the assessee is expected to prove the source of IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 29 credit in its books of account and not the source of source. Therefore in view of above elaborated discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. 37. With respect to the CO, raised by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 37.1 In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Now coming to CO No. 65/AHD/2019 an appeal by the assessee for the AY 2010-11 38. The assessee has raised the following cross objection: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case, submission of the appellant as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted, the addition of alleged cash receipts Rs. 1,60,00,000/- on account of difference of G.P while holding that keeping in view the factual position and the binding judgments, he has given the findings that addition made by the AO on the basis of loose paper Page No. 4 of Annexure A/9 is not found justified and hence deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly held.Jhat_"as the assessment order for A.Y. 2010-11 was rendered by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 08.03.2013 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on\ 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 19,08,00,000/- is not justified". 3. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit 1 after carefully considering the fats of the case, various details submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loan parties namely (i) Adi Corporation, Rajshah Enterprise Pvt.Ltd, (iii) Kalpesh Patel, (iv) Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd, (v) Shreeji Exports and (vi) Ajay Mahendrakumar Shah as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 19,08,00,QOO/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 30 4. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission of the Respondent and rightly held that" as the appellant has not paid interest to any of the unsecured loan parties for which the addition has been made by the AO as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 for an amount of Rs. 19,08,00,0007-, hence I agree with the contention of the appellant that disallowance made by the AO for unexplained (interest on unsecured loan) for an amount of Rs. 74,22,540/- is factually incorrect and the same tantamount to notional disallowance once no interest has been paid to unsecured loan parties for which the addition has been made by the AO in the assessment order" and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest of Rs, 74,22,540/-. 39. At the outset, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 39.1 In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Now coming to ITA No. 147/AHD/2018 an appeal by the assessee for the AY 2011-12 40. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in partly allowing the appeal. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the observation of the AO that the unaccounted cash receipts of various projects of the appellant company aggregating to Rs. 55,03,41,240/- worked out on the basis of MS Excel Sheet titled as "CCCCC.xls" found and seized from the possession of Mr. Anil Shah, Mr. Atul Shah and Mr. SanketVora who are neither the directors of the appellant company nor involved into the day to day affairs of the business of the appellant company. 2. The Ld, CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not treating the MS Excel Sheet titled as "CCCCC.xls" found and seized from the possession of Mr. Anil Shah, Mr. Atul Shah and Mr. SanketVora as a dumb document in absence of any incriminating material being found from the office premises of the appellant company and residential premises of directors of the appellant company at the time of search. 3(a) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at 20% worked out at Rs. 3,04,57,650/- out of unaccounted cash receipts of the project AbhishreeEcostead at Rs. 15,22,88,250/- (b) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that no net profit margin can be estimated in respect of abandoned project in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltdvs CIT 37 ITR 1 and the jurisdictional IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 31 Gujarat High Court in the case of ShivalikBuildwell (P) Ltd (2014) 220 taxmann.com 3 (Guj.) (c) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the claim of the appellant company to give set off of trading loss of Rs. 17,42,52,1247- for the development cost incurred for AbhishreeEcostead project, which has been abandoned due to the Government policy and the construction cost incurred by the appellant company is a trading loss u7s. 28(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit at 20% worked out at Rs. 2,91,96,680/- in respect of unaccounted cash receipt of Rs. 14,59,83,4007- in respect of project Abhishree Residency. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at 20% for an amount of Rs. 1,87,72,1007- in respect of unaccounted cash receipts of project Abhishree Orchard. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net ;profit margin at 20% which works out at Rs. 1,14,95,OOO/- in respect of unaccounted cash receipts of Abhishree Corporate Park for an amount of Rs. 5,74,75,0007-. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at 20% working out at Rs. 2,44,17,OOO/- out of unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 12,20,85,OOO/- in respect of AbhishreeAdroid project. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at 20% which works out at Rs. 13,03,580/- in respect of unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 65,17,9007- for the project Abhishree Avenue. 9(a). The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at 20% which works out to Rs. 2,02,40,000/- in respect of other transactions pertaining to project of Rs. 10,12,00,000/- on the basis of notings found in the Annexure A/1 Page No. 1 to 6 found and seized from the possession of AsitVora who is a third party in absence of any incriminating material being found and seized during the course of search from the business premises of the appellant company and / or from the residential premises of directors of the appellant company. (b) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not treating the seized Annexure A/1 Page 1 to 6 found and seized from the possession of AshitVora as dumb document in the case of the appellant company in absence of any statement of Shri AsitVora and in absence of any cogent material and/or independent clinching evidences being brought on record during the investigation proceedings and no cogent material and independent clinching evidences have been brought on record by the A.O during the course of assessment proceedings. (c) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that the seized Annexure A/1 Page No.1 to 6 found and seized from the possession of Shri AsitVora, the provisions of section 132(4A) r.w.s 292C is applicable in the case of Shri AsitVora and not in the case of appellant. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before on at the time of hearing. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 32 41. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO in part by sustaining the addition @ 20% of the alleged unaccounted cash receipt from various projects of Rs. 55,03,91,240/-instead of deleting the same in entirety. 42. As a result of search at Barter Group, as discusses above an excel sheet along with other documents bearing named as “CCCCC.XLS” were found from the residence of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Shri Sanket Vora Shah which was containing the unaccounted financial transactions along with the party name and the date. The financial transactions were relating to the projects of the assessee. 42.1 Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Shri Atul Hiralal Shah are holding 60% of the shares of the assessee company. This excel sheet was also containing the information about the deposits of cash in the bank account of the directors and their family members which was ultimately transferred to the assessee by layering in different bank accounts by way of unsecured loan or utilized for acquiring the properties in the name of group entities. To this effect, the statements of various persons were also recorded during the course of search. These transactions are related to various project of the assessee which were grouped as detailed under: Sr. No. Receipts as per sheets- Amt. in codes Amount in full (Rs.) 1 Ecostead 1662882.5 166288250 2 Residency 1 & 3 1459834 145983400 3 Misc. as per sheet 1243934 124393400 4 Orchard 660416.9 66041690 5. ' Corporate Park 574750 57475000' 6 Adroit & New project 447850 44785000 7 Mulsana 395680 39568000 8 Avenue 65179 6517900 IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 33 ,9 Bank Withdrawals 60000 6000000 10 Other small entries of multiple natures 360893.57 36089357 Total as per sheet 6931419.97 693141997 43. In addition to the above, the AO also noted that there was a survey operation at the premises of the assessee under section 133A of the Act dated 24 th -25 th of October 2011 wherein the assessee has disclosed unaccounted income. Thus the AO was of the view that the assessee is engaged in carrying out unaccounted financial transactions. 44. Based on the above, all the impugned documents found from the premises of the assessee and the other parties, pertaining to the assessee, along with the statement of various persons were provided to the assessee for the explanation. 44.1 In response to the notice issued by the AO, the assessee submitted that the documents found from the premises of the 3 rd parties do not belong to it and therefore no action can be initiated against the assessee based on such documents. 44.2 The assessee further contended that there cannot be any addition of those items which have been finalized in the regular assessment before the date of search. Furthermore, the addition can be made with respect to the seized materials found during the course of search. 44.3 The assessee also submitted that the AO did not provide sufficient time to reply the Show Cause Notice issued by him. As such the SCN dated 21-11-2016 issued at the end of the assessment which was getting time barred i.e. assessment was completed as on 31-12-2016. As such, the time to the assessee for making the reply was given only for short period which was not sufficient enough consodering the complexity involved in the dispute. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 34 44.4 The assessee has also requested the AO to provide the opportunity of cross-examination of Shri Anil Shah and Shri Sanket Shah whose statements recorded by the searched team which was necessary for being confronted before using such statement against it (the assessee). 44.5 The assessee further submitted that it has already made a disclosure voluntarily for certain amount of income pertaining to the year under consideration and for the AY 2012-13 in the course of the survey operation conducted under section 133A of the Act dated 24 th and 25 th October 2011. The details of the project wise and year wise voluntary disclosure made by the assessee stand as under: Name of the project A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 Total Abhishree Avenue 1,25,00,000 1,00,00,000 2,25,00,000 Abhishree Corporate Park 1,68,00,000 1,00,00,000 2,68,00,000 Abhishree Residency -III 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 Abhishree Adroit 1,95,00,000 1,95,00,000 Abhishree Orchard 3,05,00,000 3,05,00,000. AbhishreeEcostead 1,07,00,000 1,07,00,000 Total Disclosure 2,93,00,000 9,07,00,000 12,00,00,000 44.6 In view of the above, the assessee contended that in the event any addition is made in the year under consideration or subsequent assessment year, then the same (amount of voluntary disclosure) should be set off against such proposed addition. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 35 44.7 The assessee further makes project wise submission on merit against the addition proposed by the AO as detailed here in below: • Eco-stead project i. The assessee with respect to the seized excel sheet namely “CCCCC.xls and seized document bearing name annexure A-16 found from the residence of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, and E-data seized from its premises relating to the eco-stead project, containing the financial transactions, submitted that the impugned project has never taken place due to the prohibition imposed by the Government. As a result of prohibition, the assessee has incurred the trading loss of ₹ 17,40,52,124 only. Besides the above, the assessee has already voluntarily disclosed an income of ₹ 1.70 crores relating to the impugned project in the assessment year 2012-13 in consequence to the survey operation carried out in the year 2011. ii. Without prejudice to the above, the entire amount recorded in the seized documents found from the premise of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah cannot be taken as income, treating the same as on money. As such, the element of profit in such unaccounted on money can only be considered for determining the taxable profit of the assessee. • The Residency-III project i. The assessee with respect to the seized Excel sheet namely “CCCCC.xls. found from the premise of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and member detail .xls E-data seized from its premises relating to the Residency-III project, containing the financial transactions, submitted that the gross receipt as per the books of accounts stand at ₹ 17,59,56,960/- only. Besides the above, the assessee has already voluntarily disclosed an income of ₹ 1 crores relating to the impugned project in the assessment year 2012-13 in consequence to the survey operation carried out in the year 2011. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 36 ii. Without prejudice to the above, furthermore, the entire amount recorded in the seized document cannot be taken as income, treating the same as on money. As such, the element of profit in such unaccounted on money can only be considered as the income for determining the taxable profit of the assessee. • The Orchard project i. Based on the seized excel sheet namely “CCCCC.xls., found from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and E-data file containing sale deed/ Members detail xls found from the premises of the assessee and document bearing page Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 37 of annexure A-25, seized from premises of Shri Sanket Shah Vora and 55 to 67 of annexure A-2 seized from the residence of Shri Ashit Vora, relating to the orchard project, containing the financial transactions, the assessee with respect to such project submitted that the gross receipt as per the books of accounts stand at ₹ NIL only. Besides the above, the assessee has already voluntarily disclosed an income of ₹ 3.05 crores relating to the impugned project in the assessment year 2012-13 in consequence to the survey operation carried out in the year 2011 in order to buy the peace of mind. ii. Without prejudice to the above, furthermore, the entire amount recorded in the seized document cannot be taken as income, treating the same as on money. As such, the element of profit in such unaccounted on money can only be considered as the income for determining the taxable profit of the assessee. • The Corporate Park Project i. Based on the seized excel sheet namely “CCCCC.xls. found from the premise of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and member detail .xls E-data seized from the premises of the assessee, relating to the corporate park project, containing the financial transactions, the assessee with respect to such project submitted that the gross receipt as per the books of IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 37 accounts stand at ₹ 48,75,73,384.00 only. Besides the above, the assessee has already voluntarily disclosed an income of ₹ 1.68 crores and 1 crores relating to the impugned project in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in consequence to the survey operation carried out in the year 2011 in order to buy the peace of mind. ii. Without prejudice to the above, furthermore, the entire amount recorded in the seized document cannot be taken as income, treating on money. As such, the element of profit in such unaccounted on money can only be considered as the income for determining the taxable profit of the assessee. • The ABHISHREE ADROIT i. Based on the seized excel sheet namely “CCCCC.xls. found from the premise of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and member detail .xls E-data seized from the premises of the assessee and various other documents seized from the different person relating to the Abhidhree adroit project, containing the financial transactions, the assessee with respect to such project submitted that the gross receipt as per the books of accounts stand at ₹ 34,85,64,596.00 only. Besides the above, the assessee has already voluntarily disclosed an income of ₹ 1.95 crores relating to the impugned project in the assessment year 2012-13 in consequence to the survey operation carried out in the year 2011. ii. Without prejudice to the above, furthermore, the entire amount recorded in the seized document cannot be taken as income, treating on money. As such, the element of profit in such unaccounted on money can only be considered as the income for determining the taxable profit of the assessee. • The ABHISHREE AVENUE IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 38 i. Based on the seized excel sheet namely “CCCCC.xls. found from the premise of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and member detail .xls E-data seized from the premises of the assessee relating to the Abhishree Avenue project, containing the financial transactions, the assessee with respect to such project submitted that the gross receipt as per the books of accounts stand at ₹ 34,09,52,713.00 only. Besides the above, the assessee has already voluntarily disclosed an income of ₹ 1.25 crores and 1.05 crores relating to the impugned project in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in consequence to the survey operation carried out in the year 2011. ii. Without prejudice to the above, furthermore, the entire amount recorded in the seized document cannot be taken as income, treating on money. As such, the element of profit in such unaccounted on money can only be considered as the income for determining the taxable profit of the assessee. • Assessee’s submission with respect to other proposed additions of the AO i. The assessee with respect to financial transactions recorded in the seized documents found during the search at the premises of other person, contended that these documents do not belong to it. Therefore, the entries recorded therein cannot be used for making any kind of addition in the hands of the assessee. ii. However, the AO was not satisfied with the submission of the assessee and rejected the same. As such, the AO correlated the information contained in the seized data found from different places with the e-data seized from the premises of the assessee as well as with the books of accounts maintained by it. The correlation of these data was made by the AO with respect to different projects of the assessee and accordingly made the observations for each project of the assessee IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 39 with respect to the different assessment years which is described as under: • Finding of the AO on the Abhishree Adroit Project: For the AY 2011-12 i. In the excel sheet bearing number “ccccc.xls found from the premise of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, there were shown cash transaction receipts amounting to Rs. 4,47,85000/- from various parties with respect to the project namely Abhishree Adroit also referred as to Ahishree New project. The names of such parties were matching with the electronic data file containing name “Adroit” sheet in Member detail dated 25-04- 2014 found from the premises of the assessee. Such cash transactions were not recorded in the regular books of accounts. These cash transactions were pertaining to the financial year 2010-11 corresponding to the assessment year 2011-12. Thus, the AO concluded that the amount of Rs. 12,20,85,000/- represents the on money received with respect to the impugned project which was not recorded in the regular books of accounts. • For the AY 2013-14 i. Similarly, there were documents seized from the office of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Shri Atul Hiralal Shah bearing page numbers 75 to 124 of annexure A-16 which were containing the details of on money receipt relating to the assessee with respect to its project namely Abhishree adroit scheme for the period from 23 July 2012 to 15 January 2013. The names recorded in such seized papers were also found the in the electronic data file bearing name Member detail dated 25-04-2014 found from the premises of the assessee. Further, the name in seized data were also matching with the sale trial balance filed by the assessee for FY 2012-13 corresponding to AY 2013-14. However, the cash transactions for the receipt of ₹ 3,54,12,500/- recorded in the seized IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 40 documents bearing page No. 75 to 124 of annexure A-16 were not matching with the electronic data found from the office of the assessee and sale trial filed by the assessee. The AO treated the same as on money received by the assessee in the financial year 2012-13 corresponding to assessment year 2013-14. ii. There were also discovered seized documents from the office premises of the assessee bearing page numbers 21-22 of Annexure A-3, representing the receipt of cash of ₹1 lakh from SIC, pertaining to the financial year 2012-13 corresponding to assessment year 2013 -14. The AO treated the same as on money received by the assessee. Finally, the AO aggregated the amount of Rs. 3,55,12,500.00 ( 3,54,12,500 + 1,00,000/-) and treated the same as on money of the assessee. • For the AY 2014-15 i. Likewise, there were documents seized from the residence of Shri Sanket Vora bearing page numbers 1 to 6 of annexure A- 2, containing the details of booking rate of the plot i.e. Rs. 5500 per square feet and details of receipt of payment in cash as well as in bank along with the outstanding amount. There were certain entries of cash receipt with respect to certain units bearing numbers 301, 202, 306, 309 and 310 amounting to Rs. 2.26 crores. Likewise, there was the receipt of payment through banking channel for ₹ 96 Lacs and the amount of balance outstanding was at ₹ 33,63,000/- only. Such details like transaction through bank and plot no. were also matching with the electronic data found from the premises of the assessee except the element of cash of Rs. 2.26 crores and rate of plot per square meter. ii. There were also entries for the payment received on the same page bearing No. 1 to 6 of annexure A-2 amounting to ₹ 3.25 crores with IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 41 respect to certain number of plots bearing No. 401, 402, 406, 409 and 410. However, the amount recorded in the electronic data was ₹ 62,500 only against these plots as discussed above which was received through the banking channel. As such the remaining amount of ₹ 3,24,37,500.00 was representing the receipt in cash which was not disclosed in the books of accounts. iii. All the aforesaid entries were pertaining to the financial year 2013-14 and therefore the AO treated the same amount of Rs. 5,50,37,500/-( 2,26,00,000/- + 3,24,37,500/-as on money received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts. • For the AY 2015-16 i. There were certain documents seized from the premises of the assessee bearing page numbers 17, 20, 23 24, 25, 28, 30 and 31 of annexure A- 5, containing the details of plot booking rate, area, name of the buyer, unit number, date of booking etc. These details were matching with the electronic data sheet bearing name member detail dated 25-04-2014 found from the premises of the assessee. The receipt through the banking channel was duly disclosed in the books of accounts whereas the detail of cash receipt was not recorded. As per the seized documents the receipt of cash of ₹ 1,41,57,800.00 was shown as detailed under: Page No. Unit No. Rate Per Sq.yds. Name of the person iji whose name booking is recorded. Cash received 17 1102 5600 ' Mahendra Sharma -and Ripu! Sharma. - 20 107 6200 Techno Infonet P\ i. Lid. (Sam Maniat) - 23 708 6100 Zeco Aircon Limited, (Ravinder Singhal) 26.00.000/- IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 42 24 805 5850 Pratik Jain 22.34.OSO/- 28 808 5850 Cresi PH. Ltd. ( Ranjeet Sen ; Aditya Sen, Purab Vyas) 17.72.750/- 30 509 6000 Jitendra Praveen Jain 50.00.000/- 31 703 6000 Vipul Mehta 25.51.000/- Total 1,41.57,800/- ii. The above cash receipt was not recorded in the regular books of accounts which are pertaining to the financial year 2014-15 corresponding to assessment year 2015-16. Accordingly, the same was treated by the AO as on money received by the assessee. iii. It was also observed by the AO based on the seized documents that the price recorded in the documents was less than the amount mentioned in the cash working sheet as discussed above. Accordingly, the AO worked out the different amount of cash receipt with respect to the project namely Abhrisheer Adroit pertaining to different assessment years which was not recorded in the books of accounts as elaborated above. Finding of the AO on the Abhishree Corporate Park For the AY 2011-12 i. As per the seized documents marked as ccccc.xls found from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, the AO found that the assessee has received the element of cash with respect to the impugned project amounting to ₹ 5,74,75,000.00 during the period from 26 April 2010 to 19 August 2010 which was not disclosed in the books of accounts. The name of the parties recorded in the seized documents were matching with the electronic data recovered from the premises of the assessee as well as from the sale trial filed by the assessee. It was also observed by the AO that the price mentioned in the documents was less than the IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 43 price recorded in the seized documents which was actually charged from the customers. Accordingly, the AO treated the sum of ₹ 5,74,75,000 as on money received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts. • Finding of the AO on the Abhishree Orchard Project For the AY 2011-12 i. As per the seized documents marked as ccccc.xls found from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, the AO found that the assessee has received the element of cash with respect to the impugned project amounting to ₹ 6,60,41,690.00 during the period from 2 April 2010 to 26 August 2010 which was not disclosed in the books of accounts. The name of the parties along with unit nos. recorded in the seized documents were matching with the electronic data recovered from the premises of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO treated the sum of ₹ 6,60,41,690 as on money received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts. • For the AY 2012-13 i. Similarly, there were seized documents bearing number 36 of Annexure A-5 seized form residence of Shri Sanket Shah Vora containing the transactions for the booking of plot bearing no. 34 of the Abhishree Orchard project in the name of Shri Mukeha Kumar. Such document also contains the rate of the plot per Sq yard Rs. 6300/-. Further the cash receipt is also written on such page of Rs. 51,47,100/-received between 12-03-2012 to 27-07-2012 via Hawala, Vipul bhai and cash paid to Sanjay Sutaria etc. Therefore, it is clear that only cash is received @- 6300/- sq yard over and above the cheque payment receipt. The name of Shri Mukesh Kumar was also recorded in sales trail balance for FY 2011-12 filed by the assessee as well as in the e-data seized from the office of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO treated the cash receipt of Rs. 51,47,100/- as on money not recorded in the books. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 44 ii. Similarly, there were seized documents bearing number 55-57 of Annexure A-2 seized from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora containing the detail of transaction related to plot Nos. 162, 168, 161, 164, 165, 168. Such documents contain the detail of cash and cheque receipt from the customers who booked such plots. On such seized documents, the cheque is coded by cheque in Gujarati and C denotes the cash. These documents contain the cash receipt from the customers as detailed under Flat no. Name of customer Amount of cash receipts (Rs) FY of receipt 162 Dr- Saheb 25,00,000 2011-12 168 Banwarilal 58,00,000 164 Aarti Kainth Madhuk 35,00,000 165 Manjubala 17,00,000 61 Nilansha Tiwari 1,25,000 Total 1,36,25,000 iii. The above cash receipt was not recorded in the regular books of accounts which were pertaining to the financial year 2011-12 corresponding to assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, the same was treated by the AO as on money received by the assessee. iv. All the aforesaid entries were pertaining to the financial year 2011-12 and therefore the AO treated the same amount of Rs. 1,87,72,100/-( 51,47,100/- + 136,25,000/-as on money received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 45 • Finding of the AO on the project of Abhishree Residence I & III For the AY 2011-12 i. As per the seized documents marked as ccccc.xls found from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, the AO found that the assessee has received the element of cash with respect to the impugned project amounting to ₹ 14,59,83,400/-during the period from 10 April 2010 to 31 July 2010 which was not disclosed in the books of accounts. The name of the parties recorded in the seized documents were matching with the electronic data recovered from the premises of the assessee as well as from the sale trial balance filed by the assessee. It was also observed by the AO that the price mention in the documents was less than the price recorded in the seized documents which was actually charged from the customers. Accordingly, the AO treated the sum of ₹ 14,59,83,400/- as on money received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts. • Finding of the AO on the project of Abhishree Ecostead for the AY 2011-12 i. As per the seized documents marked as ccccc.xls found from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, the AO found that the assessee has received the element of cash with respect to the impugned project amounting to ₹ 15,22,88,250/- during the period from 02 April 2010 to 25 August 2010 which was not disclosed in the books of accounts. The name of the parties recorded in the seized documents were matching with the sales trial balance filed by the assessee. However, the detail of this project was not available in the E-data seized from the office of the assessee. It was also observed by the AO that the price mentioned in the documents was less than the price recorded in the seized documents which was actually charged from the customers. Accordingly, the AO treated the sum of ₹ 15,22,88,250/- as on money IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 46 received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts. • For the AY 2013-14 i. As per the seized documents pertaining to Annexure A-16 found from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, the AO found that the assessee has received the element of cash with respect to Plot no. 8/9/10 of the impugned project amounting to ₹ 1,10,00,000/-during the period the FY 2012-13 which was not disclosed in the books of accounts. The name of the parties recorded in the seized documents were also matching with the sales trial balance filed by the assessee. However the detail of this project is not available in the E-data seized from the office of the assessee. It was also observed by the AO that the price mention in the documents was less than the price recorded in the seized documents which was actually charged from the customers. Accordingly the AO treated the sum of ₹ 1,10,00,000/- as on money received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts. • Finding of the AO on the project of Abhishree Avenue Project For the AY 2011-12 i. As per the seized documents marked as ccccc.xls found from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, the AO found that the assessee has received the element of cash with respect to the impugned project amounting to ₹ 65,17,900/-during the period from 07 April 2010 to 26 August 2010 which was not disclosed in the books of accounts. The name of the parties recorded in the seized documents were matching with the electronic data recovered from the premises of the assessee as well as from the sale trial balance filed by the assessee. It was also observed by the AO that the price mention in the documents was less than the price recorded in the seized documents which was actually charged from the customers. Accordingly the AO treated the sum of ₹ IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 47 65,17,900/- as on money received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts. 44.8 In view of the above, the additions were made by the AO with respect to different projects on account of unaccounted receipts pertaining to different assessment years. The impugned additions are summarized as: PROJE CT AY 2009 -10 AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 AY 2012- 13 AY 2013- 14 AY 2014- 15 AY 2015- 16 ABHISE ER ADROI T ------- ------------ 12,20,85,000 /- ________ 3,55,12,500/ - 5,50,37,500/ - 1,41,57,800/ - ABHISR EE CORPO RATE PARK ------- ------- 5,74,75,000/- ------- ------- ------- ------- ABHIS HREE ORCHA RD ------- ------- 6,60,41,960/- 1,87,72,100/ - ------- ------- ------- ABHIS HREE RESIDE NCY I & III ------- ------- 14,59,83,400 /- ------- ------- ------- ------- ABHIS HREE ECOST EAD ------- ------- 15,22,88,250 /- ------- 1,10,00,000/ - ------- ------- ABHIS HREE AVENU E ------- ------- 65,17,900/- ------- ------- ------- ------- TOTAL NIL NIL 550391510/- 18772100/- 46512500/- 55037500/- 14157800/- 45. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A. 46. The assessee before the learned CIT-A made the common submissions for all the different projects in different assessment years in respect of GP addition of IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 48 Rs. 55,03,91,240/- on the unaccounted cash receipt determined based on seized documents as detailed in the following paragraphs: 46.1 It was submitted that the excel sheet bearing name ccccc.xls was recovered from the premises of the 3 rd party namely Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Shri Sanket Vora which has no connection with the activities of the business of the assessee. The AO has also used the seized documents found from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora, Sanket Vora and Khush Shah who were not connected with the assessee. As such, all these persons were neither the employees nor director of the company and they were also not looking after the affairs of the company. Accordingly, the documents recovered from the premises of the 3 rd parties can be used against such parties as provided under the provisions of section 132(4A) read with section 292C of the Act until and unless some tangible connection is established with the assessee. 46.2 The seized materials were supplied by the AO dated 9 December 2016 and 15 December 2016 whereas the assessment has been framed dated 30 December 2016 which evidences that the assessment has been framed without proper application of mine and verification of the relevant records. As such the AO has made addition in arbitrary manner, unrealistic and high-pitched with biased mind. 46.3 Without prejudice to the above, it was also submitted that there was survey proceedings carried out at the premises of the assessee dated 24 th and 25 th October 2011 wherein no document of incriminating nature was found. But the assessee in order to buy the peace of mind, avoid time-consuming litigation and energy, has voluntarily disclosed the income of ₹12 crores with respect to different projects pertaining to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 which constitute approximately 25% of the alleged on money. The details of the same has been given on page 8 of CIT-A order which has been reproduced somewhere in previous paragraph of this order. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 49 46.4 The income which has already been disclosed during survey operation should be reduced in the event if any addition is sustained based on the seized data bearing name cccccc.xls which contains the transactions for the period from 2 April 2010 to 26 August 2010. 46.5 The assessing with respect to its project namely Abhshree Orchard and Abhishree Ecostead submitted that there was no income generated from these projects. As such the Abhshree Ecostead project was abandoned due to change in the Government policies and therefore the amount received from the customers was classified as liability which needs to be refunded. Furthermore, the amount of money spent on this project represents the trading loss and it should be allowed as deduction from income. In view of the above the assessee requested that there should not be any addition with respect to the so-called alleged receipts from these projects amounting to Rs. 6,60,41,900.00 and Rs. 16,62,88,250.00 respectively. 46.6 The assessee has already declared handsome amount of profit with respect to different projects in all the assessment years beginning from assessment year 2008-09 till 2015-16 before depreciation and the finance cost which works out at 28.94% approximately. Therefore, in such facts and circumstances, no separate addition is warranted. 46.7 It was further submitted that the entire amount of alleged cash receipt does not represent the income of the assessee. As such all these transactions represent the business transaction and therefore some percentage of profit can only be considered to determine the profit embedded in such unaccounted receipts. Generally if percentage of profits is taken at the rate of 20% on the unaccounted money, it would work out to ₹ 9.60 crores whereas the assessee has already disclosed additional income during survey operation at ₹12 crores which is higher than the income embedded in such undisclosed receipts. Therefore, under the telescoping method, no addition is warranted. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 50 46.8 Without prejudice to the above, the assessee also submitted that the AO has not provided the opportunity of cross examination of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Shri Sanket Vora wherefrom the seized documents were recovered and used for the addition in the hands of the assessee. As such on the ground of principles of natural justice, the assessment is not sustainable. 47. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. But the ld. CIT-A rejected the contention of the assessee regarding the cross examination of the parties namely Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, Sanket Vora and Ashit Vora by observing as under: 1) The excel sheet found from the possession of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Atul Hiralal Shah as both of them hold 60% stake in the appellant company. Such sheet contains the project details of the appellant, unaccounted cash receipt from the member of various projects. The appellant has not placed on record any evidence to establish that the details contain in the sheet does not belong to it or it has not received such cash. Thus, such sheet is required to be considered in case of appellant. 2) Further, there is no need of cross examination as the addition made by the AO on the basis of seized documents and not on the basis of statement of any person. 47.1 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee in respect of unaccounted cash receipt worked out by the AO cannot be subject to tax as a whole. As such, only reasonable profit should be taxed after placing reliance on various judgment cited by the assessee. 47.2 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee and various judicial pronouncement, estimated 20% profit of unaccounted cash worked out by the AO on page 63 of assessment order and also provided the IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 51 benefit of telescoping of voluntarily disclosure made by the assessee in the manner as detailed below. Project Unaccounted receipt/addition made by AO 20% estimation of un-accounted receipt Set off voluntarily disclosure by assessee Net addition confirm by CIT-A Abhishree ecostead 15,22,88250/- 3,04,57,650/- 1,07,00,000/- 1,97,57,650/- Abhishree residency 14,59,83,400/- 2,91,96,680/- 1,00,00,000/- 1,91,96,680/- Abhishree Orchard 6,60,41,960/- (2011-12)+ 1,87,72,100/- (2012-13) 1,69,62,758/- 3,05,00,000/- NIL Abhishree Corporate park 5,74,75,000/- 1,14,95,000/- 2,68,00,000/- NIL Abhishree Adroit 1,22,08,5000/- 2,44,17,000/- 1,95,00,000/- 49,17,000/- Abhishree Avenue 65,17,900/- 13,03,580/- 2,25,00,000/- NIL 48. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of the addition made by the learned CIT-A in part whereas the revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A. 49. The relevant ground of appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 for the AY 2011-12 reads as under: IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 52 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing telescoping for amounts disclosed in a survey on 24/25.10.2011 (prior to search) against the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs 55,03,91,240/-from projects without appreciating that in survey disclosure neither unit/flat no names of persons were disclosed and in absence of any evidence furnished by assessee. the entire unaccounted cash receipts in seized documents were liable for taxation. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,65,19,910/- being 80% of unaccounted cash receipts from projects (after telescoping for amount of disclosure for projects in survey more than 3 years prior to search) without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited m bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assessee had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 50. The relevant Cross objections raised by the assessee in its CO No. 67/Ahd/2019 for the AY 2011-12 are extracted as under: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,38,71,330/- out of the total unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 55,03,91,240/- . On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) out to have deleted the entire addition of Rs. 55,03,91,240/-. , 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,02,40,000/- being 20% of net profit margin estimated on Rs. 10,12,00,000/- on account of other transactions pertaining to project. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) out to have deleted the entire addition of Rs. 10,12,00,000/- 6. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection. 51. The learned AR before us filed 24 paper books running from pages 1 to 5709 and submitted that the documents found from the premises of the assessee are duly recorded in the books of the assessee. However, the documents found in the form of excel sheet from the third party represents the dumb documents. Therefore, no reference can be made for the same while making any addition to the total income of the assessee. It was also contended that the opportunity of cross examination was not afforded to the assessee of the persons from whose possession the excel sheets were recovered. The ld. AR without prejudice to the above also contended that there cannot be made the addition for the entire amount as the transactions in the seized documents re-presents the business IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 53 transactions and therefore, at the most a reasonable percentage of profit can be added to the total income of the assessee. The learned AR before us reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. 51.1 On the other hand, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order. As per the ld. DR the assessee has already claimed the expenses in the financial statement and therefore, the question of claiming the expense against the undisclosed income does not arise. Besides, these expenses cannot be allowed as deduction as these expenses must have been incurred in violation to the provisions of section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Both the ld. AR and the DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favorable to them. 52. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. All the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal and the CO as well as the grounds raised by the Revenue in different assessment years with respect to different projects are common and interrelated to each other. Therefore, we have clubbed all of them together for the sake of brevity and convenience for the purpose of the adjudication. The facts of the case have already been elaborated in the preceding paragraph and therefore we are not inclined to repeat the same. From the preceding discussion, the following controversies arise for adjudication: i. Whether the documents containing the details of assessee’s project found from the premises of the 3 rd party can be used against the assessee as they were not belonging to the assessee. ii. Whether the documents used by the AO for the purpose of the addition were dumb documents and therefore no addition is warranted. iii. Whether the unaccounted cash transactions recorded in the seized documents be subject to tax on gross basis. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 54 iv. Whether the income disclosed by the assessee during the survey operation in the year 2011 can be set off against the income determined in the search proceedings. 52.1 With respect to the 1 st question as discussed above, we note that the documents being CCCCC.xls excel sheet containing the transactions of the different projects of the assessee as elaborated above was recovered from the premises of two individuals being Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Sanket Vora. Admittedly Shri Anil Hirala shah and his brother Atul Hiralal Shah were the shareholder to the tune of 60% in the assessee company, put together. Thus, it cannot be said that these persons were not connected with the assessee. To this effect the AO in his assessment order on page 2 & 3 has made the following observation: Sr.No. Name of the person in whose case seized Relation with SIPL Address of premises from where seized 1 SIPL Self Office at-203, ABHISHLP XOMPLEX, NR> VIDHWESHWAR MAHADEV, TEMPLE, VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABAD Site Office of Abhishree Orchard Nr. Gulmohar Greens Country Club, Telav 2. Dharmen Sutaria & Sanjay Sutaria Directors & share holders Residence at -8, AMEASHAGUN BUNGLOWS, BEHIND FUN REPUBLIC, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD 3. Anil Hiralal Shah (Alias RAJU BARTER), Atul Hiralal Shah (Alias ATUL BARTER) Atul & Anil Shah are shareholders of 30% each. Thus, they are majority shareholders. They are also partners in various firms of Sutarias. Their brother Jugnesh Hiralal Shah (also covered u/s.132) is director in SIPL B-406, WALL STREET- II, NR. GUJARAT COLLEGE, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD. 4. Sanket Jitendra Vora (alias Shah( Relative of Atul & Anil Shah. He is also C-104, PUSHKAR-3, OPP. VITRAG IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 55 director & shareholder in various companies of Barter group SOCIETY, P.T. COLLEGE ROAD, PALDI, AHMEDABAD 5. Ashit Haribhai Vora Admited to be his right-hand man by Atul Shah who used to maintain meticulous diaries & registers of u accounted transactions of Barter Group. He is also director & shareholder in various companies of Barter group 5-B, VASUPUJYA SOCIETY, OPP. VITRAG SOCIETY, P.T. COLLEGE ROAD, PALDI AHMEDABAD 6 Kush Bharat Shah Rekative of Atuk & Anil Shah 4, SAHAJANAND BUNGLOWS, NR. SHALBY HOSPITAL, RAMDEVNAGAR GARDER, PRAHLADNAGAR, AHMEDABAD 7. Atul Hiralal Shah Atul Shah is shareholder of 30% in SIPL. He is also partner in various firms of Sutarias. His brother Jignesh Hiralal Shah ( also covered u/s.132) is director in SIPL. 8, AMRASHIRISH BUNGLAOWS, NR. PRAHLADNAGAR GARDEN, PRAHALADNAGAR, AHMEDABAD. 8. Anil Hiralal Shah Anil Shah is shareholder of 30% in SIPL. He is also partner in various firms of Sutarias. His brother Jignesh Hiralal Shah ( also covered u/s.132) is director in SIPL. 36, AMRASHRISH BUNGLOWS, NR. PRAHLADNAGAR GARDEN, PRAHALADNAGAR, AHMEDABAD. 52.2 The above observation of the AO was not controverted by the learned AR for the assessee. Furthermore, all the statements and other materials in consequence to the search were duly supplied to the assessee by the AO which can be verified from page no. 6 of the assessment order. The relevant observation of the AO is extracted below: Still this office had provided all the third party seized material to assessee by 09/12/2016 after verifying from assessee’s returns u/s.153A that transaction mentioned in such documents had not bee disclosed by assessee) and had granted liberal adjournment in between. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 56 52.3 A question also strikes to our mind whether the AO was under the obligation to provide the opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee with respect to the data in the form of CCCCC.xls found from the premises of the parties as discussed above. In this connection we note that Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Shri Atul Hiralal Shah both being the shareholders of the assessee company and that too holding major stake, thus in such facts and circumstances to our mind, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross-examination. Thus, we hold that the documents found from the premises of the parties as discussed above can be used against the assessee. Thus the 1 st question is answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. 52.4 The 2 nd question arises whether the documents found from the premise of the 3 rd party were representing the dumbed documents. In this regard we note that the documents found from the 3 rd party premises were containing financial transactions, name of the party, block numbers etc. Furthermore, all such details were matching with the electronic data recovered from the computer of the assessee. As such the details contained in the electronic data were matching with the books of accounts of the assessee. In other words the details contained in the excel sheet CCCCC.xls were duly matching with the books of accounts of the assessee. Therefore, the same cannot be described as dumped document. There were also recorded several banking transactions which were matching with the books of accounts of the assessee. Even at the time of assessment and the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not contended before them that the transactions recorded in excel sheet viz a viz electronic data were not matching with each other. Once all the necessary documents have been supplied to the assessee, the onus shifted upon the assessee to disprove the transactions recorded in the seized that they were not pertaining to the assessee’s projects. But it appears to us that the assessee failed to bring such thing on record. Likewise, the learned AR at the time of hearing has also not brought anything on IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 57 record pointing out that the data between the electronic data and the excel sheet were not matching with each other. Thus, the question No. 2 is also answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. 53. The next controversy arises what should be the element of income based on the seized documents whether the percentage of profit embedded in such unaccounted business transactions should be applied for working out the income chargeable to tax. In this connection, we note that there are plethora of judgments of Hon’ble Courts which mandate to take the element of profit with respect to the unaccounted business transactions. In this regard we find support and guidance from the order of the coordinate bench of this ITAT in case of Kishore Mohanlal Telwala reported in 107 taxman 86 where the co-ordinate bench in similar fact held as under: The assessee, in fact, did charge ‘on money’ in relation to booking/sale of flats in ‘H’ appartment. However, the entire receipts on account of ‘on money’ charged by the assessee on sale/booking of flats could not be the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period because what can be taxed under Chapter XIV-B is undisclosed income and not the undisclosed receipts. During the course of hearing the assessee had brought evidence on record in regard to payments made for expenses incurred on the cost of construction for which necessary deduction had to be allowed. In any case, what can be taxed is the profit which could have been earned by the assessee on the alleged unaccounted receipts and not the entire amount. Further, the Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record that the assessee in fact had made any initial investment of Rs. 15 lakhs as alleged. In any case, even if it was assumed that the assessee did make an initial investment of Rs. 15 lakhs which was to be taxed under section 69C, the corresponding deduction would have to be allowed under section 37 as the investment was made in acquisition of business assets and as such, the amount spent was for the business of the assessee. Thus, what could be added as the undisclosed income of the assessee under section 158BC was a reasonable amount of profit which the assessee could have earned by charging ‘on money’ in respect of flats. The assessee had himself offered 8 per cent profit on the total receipts which should be considered fair and reasonable. In any case, it was to be seen that after the exhaustive search and obtaining the disclosure of Rs. 17 lakhs, the search party had not been able to find any unaccounted assets except those referred to in the statement of the assessee. The assets found at the time of search were the application of the unaccounted income of Rs. 17 lakhs which was offered to tax by the assessee in his return filed in response to a notice under section 158BC. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition as the concealed income of the assessee because the profit earned on the unaccounted receipts on the basis of the special provisions at 8 per cent as per section 44AD would be less than the amount of Rs. 17 lakhs disclosed by the assessee as undisclosed income in the return filed in response to notice under section 158BC. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer had to be deleted. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 58 53.1 The above finding of the ITAT was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in tax appeal no. 411 of 1999. We also find that this tribunal in the case of the company namely M/s Greenfield Reality Pvt Ltd in IT(SS) No. 289/Ahd/2018 in similar facts and circumstances has directed to take the element of profit based on percentage for working out the undisclosed income of the assessee. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as below: 16. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. On an analysis of the record, it would reveal that during the course of search not only details of on-money received by the assessee on booking of flats and shops in “Vesu Project” was found, but details of certain expenditure, which are not recorded in the books were also found. This included cash payment for purchase of land. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly observed that the gross on-money noticed on the seized paper cannot be considered as income of the assessee. There are certain expenditures which were not recorded in the books. Those expenditure must have been made from this on-money. Therefore, after going through the well reasoned order of the ld.CIT(A), and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Panna Corporation (supra) as well as Koshor Mohanlal Telwala (supra), we are of the view that only element of income embedded in the on-money received by the assessee for booking of flats/shops in “Vesu Project” is required to be assessed in its hand in all these years. 53.2 In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of learned CIT (A) and accordingly we uphold the same with the direction to take some percentage of profit for working out the income from the undisclosed business transactions. 53.3 The next controversy arises to determine the rate at which the profit has to be calculated from the undisclosed/ unaccounted business transactions. In this connection, we find that the tribunal in the group case of Greenfield Reality Pvt Ltd.(supra) involving identical facts and circumstances has adopted 8% of business receipts as income of the assessee. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: 17. Next question arose, what is the element of income involved in this on-money. On one hand, the assessee is showing income at 8%, on the other hand, the ld.CIT(A) is estimating it at 20%. It is pertinent to observe that section 144 of the Income Tax Act provides discretion in the AO to pass best judgment when an assessee failed to appear before him, and to submit requisite details. In other words, it provides power in the AO to estimate an income of the assessee. We deem it appropriate to take note the relevant part of this section. It reads as under: 18. For exercising the best judgment, section 144 of the Income Tax Act provide the guidance to the ld.AO. This section reads as under: “144. [(1)] If any person— IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 59 (a) fails to make the return required [under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 [or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of that section], or (c) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143, the [Assessing] Officer, after taking into account all relevant material which the [Assessing] Officer has gathered, [shall, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment] of the total income or loss to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee [* * *] on the basis of such assessment : [Provided that such opportunity shall be given by the Assessing Officer by serving a notice calling upon the assessee to show cause, on a date and time to be specified in the notice, why the assessment should not be completed to the best of his judgment : Provided further that it shall not be necessary to give such opportunity in a case where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 has been issued prior to the making of an assessment under this section.] [(2) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 (4 of 1988), shall apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year and references in this section to the other provisions of this Act shall be construed as references to those provisions as for the time being in force and applicable to the relevant assessment year.]” 19. It is pertinent to note that that section 144 would suggest that in order to estimate income, learned Assessing Officer has to exercise his discretion which should be in consonance with best of his judgment. We are conscious of the fact that in various authoritative pronouncements, it has been propounded that in making a best judgment assessment, the Assessing Officer must not act dishonestly or vindictively or capriciously. He must make, what he honestly believe to be a fair estimate of the proper figure of assessment and for this purpose he must be able to take into consideration, local knowledge, reputation of the assessee about his business, the previous history of the assessee or the similarly situated assessee. It is also pertinent to mention that judgment is a faculty to decide matter with wisdom, truly and legally. Judgment does not depend upon the arbitrary, caprice of an adjudicator, but on settled and invariably principles of justice. Thus, in a best judgment, even if, there is an element of guess work, it should not be a wild one, but shall have reasonable nexus to the available material and circumstances of each assessee. 20. During the course of hearing, we have confronted the ld.counsel for the assessee to show the basis for estimating income at 8%. Similarly, we have confronted the ld.CIT-DR as to how the figure of 20% should be taken up. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards page nos.50-51 of the paper book wherein the assessee has kept the details of receipts received through account payee cheque as well as received cash in the booking of flats as well as shops. In the case of Koshor Mohanlal Telwala (supra) the Tribunal has observed that 8% profit offered by the assessee on the alleged gross receipts of on-money received in cash is fair and reasonable. This figure was construed as fair and reasonable by taking guidance from section 44AD of the Act, wherein it was provided by the Legislature that in case an assessee is engaged in civil construction, and if gross receipts remains under a particular slab, then such assessee needs not to maintain books of accounts, and its profit can be assumed at 8%. Though this special provision is not applicable in the present case, because gross receipts exceeded the turnover provided IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 60 under section 44AD, but again we are required to find out a reasonable percentage of income which could have been alleged as earned by the assessee out of such gross receipts. This formation of opinion at the end of the Tribunal met the approval of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Koshor Mohanlal Telwala (supra). As against this, the AO has not collected any data either from other assessees who are engaged in this line of business, and who have developed identical projects. We have perused the finding of the ld.CIT(A) also, but the ld.CIT(A) has also not mentioned any attending circumstances for harbouring a belief that 20% could have been earned from this activity. Thus after taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Koshor Mohanlal Telwala (supra), we deem it proper that the assessee has rightly disclosed the profit element embedded in the gross profit at 8%. Accordingly, we allow the ground of appeal raised by the assessee, and hold that profit which has been directed to be adopted by the ld.CIT(A) at 20% of the alleged turnover should be taken at 8%. The income of the assessee is to be computed thereafter. Consequently, ground no.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue in the Asstt.Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, and ground nos.1 to 3 in the asstt.Year 2015-16riased by the Revenue are rejected. 53.4 In view of the above and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the ITAT in the case cited and discussed above, we direct the AO to take 8% of gross unaccounted cash receipt which was not accounted in the books of accounts as income of the assessee. Accordingly, there cannot be any separate addition for the undisclosed business transactions recorded in the seized documents. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 54. As regards the last question stated above, we note that the assessee has made voluntarily disclosure of income with respect to each project in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. There was nothing brought on record by the Revenue suggesting that the disclosure made by the assessee was not voluntarily and it was not connected with the projects carried out by the assessee in different assessment years as detailed in the preceding paragraph. Thus, we can safely conclude that the income offered during the survey operation can be set off against the determination of the income which is based on the seized documentary evidence. 54.1 For example, there was a survey operation in the case of the assessee wherein the assessee has made voluntarily disclosure of certain amount of money as income. But sometime later search is conducted and the documents were found IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 61 and accordingly the income was determined. If the assessee is able to establish the nexus between the voluntarily disclosure made in the course of survey operation with the determination of the income computed as a result of search operation, then to our understanding the assessee is entitled to claim the set off such income disclosed voluntarily in the proceedings of survey operation. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the set off of the income voluntarily disclosed in the survey proceedings conducted in the earlier year against the income computed based on the documentary evidence in the year under consideration as a result of search. 54.2 Without prejudice to the above, we find pertinent to record that there were business receipts on papers which were found as a result of search proceedings from the premises of the shareholders discussed above, however, the revenue has not brought any cogent material suggesting the receipt of physical cash by the assessee. In other words, there is a possibility that the amount in cash might have received by the shareholders of the assessee company but the same has not reached to the assessee at all. Be that as it may be, undisputedly the transactions recorded in the seized materials were pertaining to the business of assessee, thus if there is any element of income embedded in seized documents, the same has to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 54.3 Regarding the contention of the ld. DR that there was violation of the provisions of section 40A(3)/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act, we note that there was no issue with respect to the expenses in the year under consideration but the issue was relating to the profit to be determined with respect to unaccounted business receipts. Accordingly, the question disallowing such expenses under the provisions of section 40A(3)/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise. 54.4 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we are of the view that percentage of profit on unaccounted receipt of money will render justice to both the assessee and the Revenue in the manner as discussed above. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 62 Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee and objection raised in the CO is partly allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 55. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 5 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the net profit at 20% of unaccounted receipt of Rs. 1,87,72,100/ in respect project namely Abhishree Orchared. 56. This ground is not relevant for the year under consideration as it is related to AY 2012-13. Thus the same has been dealt in the appeal of the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13 Furthermore, the assessee also got the relief from the learned CIT-A and therefore the assessee is not aggrieved. Thus, no separate adjudication is required at this stage. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 57. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 9 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating net profit at Rs. 2,02,40,000/- being 20% of Rs. 10,12,00,000/- in respect of other unaccounted cash receipt pertaining to Abhishree Avenue project as per seized documents found at the premises of Shri Ashit Vora. 58. There were documents seized from the premises of Shri Asit Vora bearing page numbers 1 to 6 of annexure A-1 which were containing the details of transaction related to Naminath Traders Pvt Ltd. and calculation of rate of various project of the assessee. The seized page Nos. 1 & 2 contained the details of payment made to M/s Saral Management & Consultancy and Shreeji Infastructure along with the value of Rs. 16,62,00,000/- only. 58.1 Further, the page no. 4 contains the details of entry of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- with the narration of HK Stock Service Pvt Ltd., a company controlled by the Barter group. On verification of the seized books of the HK Stock Service Pvt Ltd., it was found that the amount of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- has been transferred to M/s IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 63 Saral Management and Consultancy a proprietary concern of Shri Mehander bhai M Sutaria who is the father of the director of assessee company. Furthermore, M/s Saral Management & Consultancy immediately transferred a sum of Rs. 1,54,65,000/- out of 1,65,00,000/- to the M/s Siddham Finance whose proprietor is Shri Sanjay Sutaria who is director of the assessee company . 58.2 On seized page bearing no. 4 contains the details of property having aggregate value of Rs. 15,79,53,900.00 and Noting on page No. 6 indicate the outstanding balance of 82,46,100 after reduction of payment 15,79,53,100/-. 58.3 Further, on seized page bearing no. 8 of annexure A-1 seized form the premises of the Shri Ashit Vora found that the Shreej Infrastructure has received payment by way of bank from different companies. Shreej Infrastructure is a proprietorship firm and Shri Ketan S shah is the proprietor who is husband of sister of director of the assessee company. 58.4 It is clear from the seized documents as discussed above that the fund paid to M/s Saral Management & Consultancy and Shreej Infastructure had been set off by way of allotment of properties to barter group as evident from the details on seized page bearing no. 4 of annexure A-1 as discussed above. 58.5 Further, as per noting on page no. 4, the showroom nos. 4 and 5 in Abhishree Avenue project have been recorded in the name of barter group at the value of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- only. However, on perusal of the e-data found from the office of the assessee, it was found that both showroom bearing nos. 5 & 6 of Abhishree Avenue project are booked in the name of M/s. Naminath Traders Private Limited. 58.6 Thus it is clear, in view of the above, that the fund has been paid by the barter group’s through its controlled companies or through the other companies to the entities related to Shri Sanjay Sutaria and Dharmen Sutaria for the transfer of IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 64 the property in the name of M/s Neminath Traders Private Limited. However, the assessee has declared sale consideration from the property in the name of M/s Neminath traders Pvt Ltd amounting to Rs. 6,50,00,000/- only.. Therefore, the AO in view of the above treated the difference of Rs. 10,12,00,000/- (16,62,00,000/- - 6,50,00,000/-) as unaccounted income under section 69A of the Act and made the addition to the total income of the assessee. 59. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A. 60. The assessee before the learned CIT-A with respect to the addition of ₹10,12,00,000/- under the provisions of section 69A of the Act submitted that the AO made addition by placing reliance on the documents bearing nos. 1 to 6 seized from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora which contain the detail of transaction of Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd which is a company of barter group. The AO cannot draw any inference against the assessee on the basis of the documents seized from the third party who is not directly/ indirectly connected with the assessee. Further, the AO has failed to bring any cogent material to conclude that the transaction belongs to the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO needs to be deleted. 60.1 Further, the seized documents do not contain the information regarding transaction between the assessee and M/s Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd. It may be possible that such documents was written by Shri Ashit Vora for the purpose of resale of booking made by Neminath Traders/ Shri Atul shah and Shri Anil Shah in the scheme of the appellant company namely Abhishree Avenue, Corporate Park, Abhishree Residency III. 60.2 The assessee also submitted that the AO failed to bring on record the statement of Shri Ashit Vora and also did not provide the opportunity of cross examine. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 65 61. The ld. CIT-A after considering the submission of the assessee and the finding of the AO estimated the profit at 20% of unaccounted cash receipt 62. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of the addition made by the learned CIT-A in part for Rs. 2,02,40,000/- whereas the revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs. 8,09,60,000/-. 63. The relevant ground of appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 reads as under: 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld C!T(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,09,60,000/- being 80% of other unaccounted cash receipts without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited in bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assessee had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of such unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 64. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 66/Ahd/2019 is reproduced as under: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.2,02,40,000/- bearing 20% of net profit margin estimated on Rs.10,12,00,000/- on account of other transaction pertaining to project. On facts and circumstances of case, the Ld.CIT(A) out to have deleted the entire addition of Rs.10,12,00,000/- 65. Both the learned AR and the DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favorable to them. 66. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It was alleged by the AO that assessee has made sales of the property to M/s Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd for a sum of ₹ 16.62 which is evident from the seized documents whereas the assessee has recorded the sales in the books of accounts at ₹ 6.50 crores only. Thus, the difference amounting to ₹10.12 crores was added in the hands of the assessee by the AO IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 66 which was restricted by the learned CIT-A to the tune of 20% of ₹10.12 crores. In this connection we have perused the finding of the authorities below wherein it was alleged that the payment by the purchaser was made to the group companies/ the persons related to the assessee. As such there was no specific finding given by the authorities below suggesting that the money was received by the assessee. Furthermore, a doubt also arises about the payment made by the purchaser to the different parties associated with the assessee what transaction was recorded in the respective books of accounts or there can be a possibility that there was another transaction between them which was unconnected to the assessee. But at the same time it is also evident from the seized documents that the assessee has sold the property for a value of ₹16.62 crores as discussed above which is difficult to ignore. As such, in such a situation it is expected from the Revenue to carry out necessary verification from the parties involved in the impugned transaction. But no such verification has been done. Likewise there is no finding of the AO about the market value of the property transferred by the assessee. Similarly, there is no information qua the stamp duty valuation. However, the circumstantial evidence suggests that the assessee is indulged in receiving the on money in respect of which income has been calculated by us at the rate of 8% of the unaccounted receipt. In parity of this finding, we are inclined to hold that the assessee is in receipt of 10.12 crores as unaccounted money from the purchaser and the income embedded therein stands at Rs. 80,96,000.00 being 8% of ₹10.12 crores. Hence, the ground of appeal and objection raised by the assessee in the CO is partly allowed whereas ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 66.1 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Now coming to the Revenue appeal in ITA 187/AHD/2018, for AY 2011- 12 67. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 67 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing telescoping for amounts disclosed in a survey on 24/25.10.2011 (prior to search) against the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs 55,03,91,240/-from projects without appreciating that in survey disclosure neither unit/flat no. ^ nor names of persons were disclosed and in absence of any evidence furnished by assessee. the entire unaccounted cash receipts in seized documents were liable for taxation. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,65,19,910/- being 80% of unaccounted cash receipts from projects (after telescoping for amount of disclosure for projects in survey more than 3 years prior to search) without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited m bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assessee had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. .._-—- 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld C!T(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,09,60,000/- being 80% of other unaccounted cash receipts without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited in bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assessee had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of such unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on issue of unsecured loans holding that no incriminating material was found in search on this issue without appreciating that first proviso to section 153A clearly mandates AO to assess or reassess total income of each year falling within section 153A(1)(a) 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the fact that while concluding the assessment following the notice issued under Section 153A(1)(a) of the Act is it necessary that any incriminating material ought to have been unearthed in the search under Section 132 of the Act to make any additions to the returns filed by the assessee following notice under Section l53A(1)(a)? 6.. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 28.70,47,121/- on issue of unsecured loans without appreciating that assessee had not proved genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders for interest-free unsecured loans taken from Raju Barter entities (Neminath Trades Pvt Ltd, Three C Surveys Pvt Ltd, Deesha tie-up Ltd) were found to be unexplained and were accommodation entries sourced from Shirish Chandrakant Shah and other accommodation entry providers, that for Satvmde/ M Vasu. Surend/akumar M Vasu and Manjitsing J Vasu, neither confirmation nor ITR was not filed and also that, considering their names reflected also reflected in unaccounted cash transactions in seized data 'CCCCC' sheet, genuineness was not proved, 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 28.70.47.121/- without appreciating that for unsecured loans including those from Raju Barter entities (Neminath Trades Pvt Ltd. Three C Surveys Pvt Ltd, Deesha tie-up Ltd) since the transaction was unexplained both in hands of creditor as well as assessee. the addition in both cases is justified in view of case laws in Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd [2016} 75 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta) and Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra [2004] 141 Taxman 574 (Allahabad) as sections 68 & 69 are IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 68 deeming provisions and effect to both sections has to be given separately in hands of both creditor and assessee. 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50. 74,867/- being interest on unsecured loans from parties as in grounds above without appreciating that such interest was paid on unexplained credits. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 10 It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O be restored to the above extent. 68. The issue raised by the revenue in ground nos. 1 & 2 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to the extent of 80% of the unaccounted receipt from various project of Rs. 55,03,91,240/-after allowing the telescoping of the voluntarily discourse made by assessee during survey proceedings. 69. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue has been adjudicated along with assessee’s ground of appeal in IT(SS) No. 147/Ahd/2018 where we have decided the issue vide paragraphs nos. 52 to 54 of this order against the Revenue. For detail discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 70. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no. 3 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to the extent of 80% of the other unaccounted cash receipt pertaining to the project Abhishree avenue of Rs. 10,12,00,000.00 only. 71. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the revenue has been adjudicated along with assessee’s ground of appeal in IT(SS) No. 147/Ahd/2018 where we have decided the issue vide paragraph no. 66 of this order against the Revenue. For detailed discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 69 72. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 4 to 8 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 28,70,47,121/- made under section 68 of the Act on legal count as well as on merit of the case. The learned CIT(A) further erred in deleting the disallowances of interest expenses of Rs. 50,74,867/-paid on such loans. 73. The assessee during the year under consideration has shown receipt of unsecured loan of Rs. 28,70,47,121/- from the different parties detailed as under: S. No. Name of creditor Amount in Rs. 1. Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd 13,50,00,000/- 2. Three C Survey Pvt. Ltd 10,30,00,000/- 3. Deesha Tie-up Ltd 80,00,000/- 4. Satvindersingh M Vasu 1,51,98,904/- 5. Satvindersing M Vasu HUF 50,50,958/- 6. Surendra Kumar M Vasu 50,96,986/- 7. Manjitsingh J Vasu 1,57,00,273/- Total 28,70,47,121/- 74. The AO in the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Besides the AO also disallowed the interest amounting to Rs. 50,74,867/- paid on impugned unsecured loan. 75. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A) and reiterated its submission as made in the previous assessment year i.e. AY 2009-10 that no material of incriminating nature was found during the course of search proceeding with regard to unsecured loan. The regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration has been completed by order dated 25-02-2014 where the genuineness of the loan credit has been accepted on the strength of the details furnished by it. It is settled legal position that in the proceeding under section 153A of the Act, no addition or disallowance can be IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 70 made in the completed assessment year in the absence of incriminating material. Thus, the addition made by the AO in the year under consideration on account of unsecured loan by treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is not sustainable. 76. The assessee without prejudice to the legal contention also made submission on the merit by contending that unsecured loan received from the parties namely Satvindersing M Vasu, Satvindersing M Vasu HUF, Surendrakumar M. Vasu and Manjitsingh J Vasu was received through banking channel and same were returned back during the year itself along with interest after deducting TDS. Therefore, the genuineness of the receipt of loan from these parties cannot be doubted. Further, the AO in the assessment himself has prepared a chart showing PAN of loan creditor and income declared by them for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. On perusal of the same, it can be seen that parties namely Satvindersing M Vasu, Satvindersing M Vasu HUF, Surendrakumar M. Vasu and Manjitsingh J Vasu were regularly filing return of income and has shown substantial taxable income. Thus, the identity and creditworthiness of these parties and genuineness of the transactions cannot be doubted. 76.1 The assessee with regard to the unsecured loan of Rs. 13.5 crore, Rs. 10.3 crore and Rs. 80 Lakh from Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd, Three C Survey Pvt Ltd and Deesha Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. submitted all these three parties are part of current search proceedings u/s 153A/153C of the Act and falling under the jurisdiction of the same AO. Therefore the identity of these parties got established beyond doubt. Further, it has discharged preliminary onus by furnishing ledger copy, confirmation copy, banks statement showing fund transferred through banking channel. The AO was having access to all the financial details of impugned parties which are available on record of the AO. Further, Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd for the year under consideration has declared income of Rs. 43,48,920/ and also funds of Rs. 75,34,57,618/- in form of share capital, reserve & surplus, share application money and share premium. Likewise the party namely Three C Survey IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 71 Pvt. Ltd. has declared income of Rs. 52,15,830/- and also having funds of Rs. 24 crores in form of share capital and reserved & surplus. Disha Tie Up Pvt Ltd also have funds of Rs. 17.4875 crores in forms of share capital and reserved & surplus. Therefore the allegation of the AO that identity, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness was not established is devoid of merit. 76.2 Likewise, the assessee with regard to disallowance of interest expense submitted that the AO has made disallowance without applying mind on prorate basis. As such there was no interest paid against the loan of Rs. 24 Crores from Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd, Three C Survey Pvt Ltd and Deesha Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. The interest was paid against the 4 parties of Venus group was also cannot be doubted. 77. The learned CIT (A) after considering the facts in totality deleted the addition made by the AO on legal ground as well as on facts. 78. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A whereas the assessee is in the CO has supported the finding of learned CIT-A. 79. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 66/Ahd/2019 is reproduced as under: 3. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly held that "as the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 was passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 25.02.2014 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 28,70,47,12/- is not justified". 4. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit, after carefully considering the facts of the case, various details submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity of the depositor parties namely (i) Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd, (ii) Three C Surveys Pvt.Ltd, (iii) Deesha Tie Up Pvt.Ltd, (iv) Shri Satvindersingh M. Vasu, (v) Satindersingh M. Vasu-HUF, (vi) IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 72 Surendrakumar M. Vasu and (vii) Manjitsingh J. Vasu as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 28,70,47,121/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has rightly held that the Respondent company has not paid interest to the three parties namely (i) Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd, (ii) Three C Surveys Pvt.Ltd and (iii) Deesha Tie Up Pvt.Ltd and the addition on account of interest on such unsecured loan is not justified. In respect of Four entities of Vasu Family, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the Respondent has paid interest to the four entities of Vasu Family after deducting the TDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the Respondent from Vasu Family were not used for the purpose of business of the Respondent and it has been used for any other purpose and therefore, interest paid to four entities of Vasu Family is required to be treated as for the business purpose and the same is allowable as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the Ld.CIT (A) has correctly deleted the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure (being interest on unsecured loan) of Rs. 50,74,867/-. 80. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order whereas, on the contrary, the learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order. 81. We have heard the rival contention of both parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the appellant assessee during the year under consideration received unsecured loan of Rs. 28,70,47,121/- from different parties and the details of the same have been reproduced somewhere in previous paragraphs. The AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and made addition to the total income of the assessee and also disallowed the amount of interest on such loan which came to be deleted by the learned CIT(A) on legal ground as well on merit of the case. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 82. At outset we note that the AO in A.Y. 2009-10 has also treated the unsecured loan as unexplained under section 68 which was deleted by the learned CIT(A) on legal count that there was no incriminating material found in the search proceeding, hence in the absence of material found in search, no addition can be made in case of completed assessment years. The Revenue against the finding of IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 73 learned CIT(A) was in appeal before us vide IT(SS) No. 185/Ahd/2019 which we have decided vide paragraph No.12 & 13 of this order by upholding the finding of the learned CIT(A). In the year under consideration also, there was no change in facts and circumstances as far as legal issue is concerned. The learned CIT(A) has given categorical finding that the no incriminating material found with respect to the unsecured loan. The learned DR before us has not been able to controvert the finding of the learned CIT(A). Thus, considering the fact that the year under consideration is a case of completed assessment year, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). 83. Coming to the merit of the case. At the outset we note that in case of loan parties namely Satvindersing M Vasu, Satvindersing M Vasu HUF, Surendrakumar M. Vasu and Manjitsingh J Vasu the loan amount were returned back in in the year under consideration along interest after deduction of TDS. Therefore, in light of judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 and also in case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji reported in 42 taxmann.com 251, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) as far as deletion made by him with regard to loan from the above mentioned parties i.e. Satvindersing M Vasu, Satvindersing M Vasu HUF, Surendrakumar M. Vasu and Manjitsingh J Vasu. 83.1 Moving forward to issue of deletion of the addition by the learned CIT(A) on account of loan amount of Rs. 13.5 crores, Rs. 10.30 crore and Rs. 80 lacs from the parties namely Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd., Three C Survey Pvt Ltd and Deesha Tie Up Pvt Ltd. The identity of all these parties got establish beyond doubt by the fact that all these parties are assessed under section 153A/153C of the Act by the same AO who has framed assessment in the case of the appellant assessee. Further, the assessee furnished details such as ledger copy, confirmation of the parties and bank statement showing amount transferred through banking channel along with audited financial statement showing IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 74 substantial funds in their respective financial statements. The AO was also having access to all these documentary evidences being the AO of the loan parties but no infirmity was pointed out by the AO in these preliminary evidences based on conclusive or corroborative materials. Thus in our considered view the assessee has duly discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act by placing the documentary evidences with respect to identity, genuineness of the transactions and credit worthiness of the parties. Further, under the provision of section 68 of the Act, it is expected to prove the source of credit in its books of account and not the source of source. Therefore, in view of above elaborated discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. 83.2 With respect to the CO, raised by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 83.3 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismiss. Now coming to the CO of the assessee bearing No. 66/AHD/2019, AY 2011-12 84. The assessee has raised the following objection in CO. 66/AHD/2019 1. he Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,38,71,330/- out of the total unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 55,03,91,240/- . On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) out to have deleted the entire addition of Rs. 55,03,91,240/-. , 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,02,40,000/- being 20% of net profit margin estimated on Rs. 10,12,00,000/- on account of other transactions pertaining to project. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) out to have deleted the entire addition of Rs. 10,12,00,000/- 3. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly held that "as the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 was passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 25.02.2014 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on 04.12.2014 and the assessment for IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 75 A.Y. 2011-12 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 28,70,47,12/- is not justified". 4. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit, after carefully considering the facts of the case, various details submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity of the depositor parties namely (i) Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd, (ii) Three C Surveys Pvt.Ltd, (iii) Deesha Tie Up Pvt.Ltd, (iv) Shri Satvindersingh M. Vasu, (v) Satindersingh M. Vasu-HUF, (vi) Surendrakumar M. Vasu and (vii) Manjitsingh J. Vasu as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 28,70,47,121/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has rightly held that the Respondent company has not paid interest to the three parties namely (i) Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd, (ii) Three C Surveys Pvt.Ltd and (iii) Deesha Tie Up Pvt.Ltd and the addition on account of interest on such unsecured loan is not justified. In respect of Four entities of Vasu Family, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the Respondent has paid interest to the four entities of Vasu Family after deducting the TDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the Respondent from Vasu Family were not used for the purpose of business of the Respondent and it has been used for any other purpose and therefore, interest paid to four entities of Vasu Family is required to be treated as for the business purpose and the same is allowable as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the Ld.CIT (A) has correctly deleted the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure (being interest on unsecured loan) of Rs. 50,74,867/-. 6. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection. 85. The issue raised by the assessee in objection no. 1 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,38,71,330/- on unaccounted cash receipt of Rs. 55,03,91,510/- from various project. 86. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee has been adjudicated along with assessee’s ground of appeal in IT(SS) No. 147/Ahd/2018 where we have decided the issue vide paragraph no. 52 to 54 of this order partly in favour of the assessee. For detailed discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence the ground raised by the assessee in the CO. is hereby partly allowed. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 76 87. The issue raised by the assessee in objection No. 2 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,02,00,000/- on other unaccounted cash receipt of Rs. 10,12,00,0000/- pertaining to the project Abhishree avenue. 88. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee has been adjudicated along with assessee’s ground of appeal in IT(SS) No. 147/Ahd/2018 where we have decided the issue vide paragraphs No. 66 of this order partly in favour of the assessee. For detailed discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence the ground raised by the assessee in the CO. is hereby partly allowed. 89. The issue raised by the assessee in objection Nos. 3 to 5 is that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 28,70,47,121/- in respect of unsecured loan and interest there on for Rs. 50,47,867/- only. 90. At the outset, we note that the assessee in the CO’s Nos. 3 to 5 has supported the order of the learned CIT-A. Therefore, the same was not required to be adjudicated separately. As such, the objections raised by the assessee become infructuous. Accordingly we dismiss the same as infructuous. 90.1 In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Now coming ITA No. 188/AHD/2018 an appeal by the Revenue for the AY 2012-13 91. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing telescoping for amounts disclosed in a survey on i 24/25.10.2011 (prior to search) against the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.1,87,72.100/-from projects without appreciating that in survey disclosure neither unit/flat no. nor names of persons were disclosed and in absence of any evidence furnished by assesses, the entire unaccounted cash receipts in seized documents were liable for taxation. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 77 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of of Rs. 1,50,17.680/- being 80% of unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 1,87,72 100/- (after telescoping for amount \ of disclosure for projects in survey more than 3 years prior to search) \ without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited in bank \ accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assesses had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. / 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on issue of unsecured loans holding that no incriminating material was found in search on this issue without appreciating that first proviso to section 153A clearly mandates AO to assess or reassess total income of each year falling within section 153A(1)(a) 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the fact that while concluding the assessment following the notice issued under Section 153A(1)(a) of the Act, is it necessary that any incriminating material ought to have been unearthed in the search under Section 132 of the Act to make any additions to the returns filed by the assessee following notice under Section 153A(1)(a)? 5 Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in taw, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31.85.24.318/- on issue of unsecured loans without appreciating that assessee had not proved genuineness of transactions and creditworthlness of lenders for interest-free unsecured loans taken from Raju Barter entities (Neminath Trades Pvt Ltd, Three C Surveys Pvt Ltd. Deesha tie-up Ltd) were found to be unexplained and were accommodation entries sourced from Shirish Chandrakant Shah and other accommodation entry providers, that for others, either confirmation or ITR was not filed or they had filed no/nil returns of income and also that, considering their names reflected also reflected in unaccounted cash transactions in seized data 'CCCCC' sheet genuineness was not proved. 6 Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs jl.85.24.318/- without appreciating that for unsecured loans including those from Raju Barter entities (Neminath Trades Pvt Ltd. Three C Surveys Pvt Ltd Deesha tie-up Lid) since the transaction was unexplained both in hands of creditor as well as assessee, the addition in both cases is justified in view of case laws in Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd [2016] 75 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta) and Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra [2004] 141 Taxman 574 (Allahabad) as sections 68 & 69 are deeming provisions and effect to both sections has to be given separately m hands of both creditor and assessee. 7- Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 64.29.893/- being interest on unsecured loans from parties as in grounds above without appreciating that such interest was paid on unexplained credits. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 9 It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A O. be restored to the above extent. 92. The first interconnected issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 1 & 2 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,50,17,680/- in respect IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 78 of unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 1,87,72,100/- from the Abhishree Orchard project after allowing the benefit of telescoping of the voluntarily disclosure of the income made by assessee. 93. In this case, the AO has made the addition of ₹ 1,87,72,100/- representing the unaccounted receipt of the assessee. The details finding of the AO qua to this receipt has already been elaborated in the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS) No. 147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. However, the learned CIT-A on appeal by the assessee held that the entire amount of unaccounted receipt cannot be added to the total income of the assessee which is a business receipt and the amount of profit embedded in such receipt should only be brought to tax. As such the learned CIT-A was pleased to compute an income at Rs. 37,54,420.00 being 20% of Rs. 1,87,72,100/- which according to the learned CIT-A was liable to be added to the total income of the assessee. However the learned CIT-A has not made any addition for the impugned amount on the reasoning that the assessee has already voluntarily disclosed the income pertaining to the year under consideration in the survey proceedings amounting to ₹ 3.05 crores. 94. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A whereas the assessee in the CO has supported the decision of learned CIT-A. 95. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 67/Ahd/2019 is reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case, submission of ' the Respondent as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,87,72,1007-. 96. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favorable to them. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 79 97. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we note that we have already adjudicated the identical issue in the case of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 in IT(SS)A No. 147/AHD/2018 vide paragraph number 52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relief was given to the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has made voluntarily disclosure which was eligible to set off against the income determined in the search proceedings. Respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT-A. Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 98. With respect to the CO, raised by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 99. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 3 to 7 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,85,24,318/- made under section 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) further erred in deleting the disallowance of interest expense of Rs. 64,29,893/- paid on such loans. 100. The assessee during the year under consideration has shown receipt of unsecured loan of Rs. 31,85,24,318/- from the different parties detailed as under: S. No. Name of creditor Amount in Rs. 1. Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd 1,88,88,400/- 2. Three C Survey Pvt. Ltd 1,10,00,000/- 3. Adi Corporation 14,89,31,973/- 4. Falguniben C. Patel 2,78,03,279/- 5. Vaibhav Capital Management 1,00,03,945/- 6. Ashishbhai Shah 35,00,000/- IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 80 7. LaxmiDyechem 50,00,000/- 8. Samket Enterprises 50,00,000/- 9. Gokul Refoils & Solvents Ltd 7,00,00,000/- 10. Sarvashanti Proprietor Pvt Ltd 2,00,00,000/- 11. Deesha Tie-up Ltd 4,62,00,000/- Total 36,63,27,597/- 101. The AO in the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Besides, the AO also disallowed the interest amounting to Rs. 92,33,712/- paid on such impugned unsecured loan. 102. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A) and reiterated its submission as made in the previous assessment year i.e. AY 2009-10 that no material of incriminating nature was found during the course of search proceeding with regard to unsecured loan. It is settled legal position that in the proceeding under section 153A of the Act, no addition or disallowance can be made in the completed assessment in the absence of incriminating material. Thus the addition made by the AO in the year under consideration on account of unsecured loan by treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is not sustainable. 103. The assessee without prejudice to the legal contention also made submission on the merit by contending that the unsecured loan were received from all the loan parties through the banking channel. The loan amount from Vaibhav Capital Management, Ashishbhai Shah, Laxmi Dyechem, Samket Enterprise and Gokul Refoils & Solvents Ltd. were returned back during the year itself along with interest as applicable after deducting the TDS. Therefore, the genuineness of the receipt of loan from these parties cannot be doubted. Further, the AO in assessment himself has prepared a chart showing PAN of loan creditors and income declared by them for AYs 2009-10 to 2015-16. On perusal of the IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 81 same, it can be seen that these parties were regularly filing return of income and has shown substantial taxable income. Thus the identity and creditworthiness of the loan parties cannot be doubted. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 14,89,31,973/- made on account of loan from M/s Adi Corporation is not justified. As such, out of the loan amount of Rs. 14.8 crore received during the year and interest credited @ 14.5%, an amount of Rs. 13,43,59,024/- being principle amount and interest was repaid during the year leaving closing balance of Rs. 1,42,25,420/- only. Therefore, the amount of addition of Rs. 14,89,31,973/- includes interest of Rs. 9,31,973/- only. For which separate addition of interest expenses was made, thus the same lead to double addition. 103.1 Likewise loan of Rs. 2.50 crore received from Smt. Falguniben C Patel against which interest of Rs. 28,03,279/- was credited on which TDS of Rs. 2,80,328/- was deducted and paid to the ITD. But the AO made addition of Rs. 2,78,03,279/- under section 68 of the Act and also made separate addition of interest which leads to double addition. Further the AO himself prepared a list showing yearly income declared by Smt. Falguniben C Patel and for the year, the party has declared income of Rs. 5,17,35,910/-. Thus, considering the fact that loan received through banking channel, interest was duly credited after deducting TDS and the party is regularly filing return of income with healthy amount of income, the condition prescribed under section 68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the party got established. 103.2 The assessee further submitted that the AO has wrongly made addition of Rs. 2 crores under section 68 of the Act, on account of unsecured loan from Sarvashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd, as the loan of Rs. 2.5 crore was received in the AY 2009-10 out which an amount of Rs. 2 crores is still pending. Thus there was no fresh loan from Sarvashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd credited in the year under consideration. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 82 103.3 The assessee with regard to unsecured loan from Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd, Three C Survey Pvt Ltd and Deesha Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. reiterated its submission as made in the earlier assessment year that all the three parties are part of current search proceedings u/s 153A/153C of the Act and falling under jurisdiction of the same AO. Therefore, the identity of these parties got established beyond doubt. Further it has discharged preliminary onus by furnishing ledger copy, confirmation copy, banks statement showing fund transferred through banking channel. The AO was having access to all the financial details of impugned parties which are available on record of the AO. Therefore, the allegation of the AO that identity, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness was not established is devoid of merit. 104. The learned CIT (A) after considering the facts in totality deleted the addition made by the AO on facts. 105. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A whereas the assessee in the CO has supported the decision of learned CIT-A. 106. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 67/Ahd/2019 is reproduced as under: 2. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case, various details \ submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity of the various loan parties as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 36,63,27,597/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission i made by the Respondent has rightly held that from verification of the ledger account of the eight parties namely (i) Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd, (ii) Three C Surveys Pvt.Ltd (iii) Deesha Tie Up Pvt.Ltd, (iv) Ashishbhai Shah, (v) Laxmi Dyechem (vi) Samket Enterprise, (vii) Gokul Refoils and Solvents and (viii) Sarvashanti Properties Pvt.Ltd, it is noticed that the Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid eight companies from whom unsecured loan received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the AO of Rs. 92,33,712/-. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 83 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has also held that in respect of unsecured loan received from three parties namely (i) Adi Corporation, (ii) Vaibhav Capital Management and (iii) Shri Falgun C. Patel are genuine and as the Respondent has paid interest to the three entities / individuals after deducting TDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the Respondent from the three entities / individuals were not used for the purpose of business of the Respondent and it has been used for any other purpose, the interest paid to the three entities / individuals is required to be treated as for the business purpose and the same is allowable as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the interest disallowed by the AO is not justified and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest mad the by the AO. 107. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order whereas, on the contrary, the learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order. 108. We have heard the rival contention of both parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the appellant assessee during the year under consideration received unsecured loan from different parties and the detail of the same has been reproduced somewhere in the previous paragraphs. The AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and made addition to the total income of the assessee and also disallowed the amount of interest on such loan which came to be deleted by the learned CIT(A). 109. At the outset, we note that in case of loan parties namely Vaibhav Capital Management, Ashishbhai Shah, Laxmi Dyechem, Samket Enterprise and Gokul Refoils & Solvents Ltd, the loan amount were returned back in the year under consideration along interest after deducting TDS. Similarly in case of loan party namely Adi Corporation majority of loan amount and interest was paid back during the year under consideration itself. Therefore, in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 and also in case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji reported in 42 taxmann.com 251, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) as far as deletion IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 84 made by him with regard to loan from above mentioned parties i.e. Vaibhav Capital Management, Ashish bhai Shah, Laxmi Dyechem, Samket Enterprise, Gokul Refoils & Solvents Ltd and Adi Corporation. 110. Coming to the addition of Rs. 2 crores against the alleged unsecured loan from the party namely Sarvashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd., the appellant assessee during appellate proceeding claimed that no fresh loan from said party was credited during the year. The amount of Rs. 2 crore is carry forwarded from previous year. The claim of the assessee has been found true by the learned CIT(A). The learned DR before us not brought any contrary material to controvert the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(A) in connection alleged loan from Sarvashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd. 110.1 Moving forward to issue of deletion of addition by the learned CIT(A) on account of loan from the parties namely Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd., Three C Survey Pvt Ltd and Deesha Tie Up Pvt Ltd., the identity of all these parties got establish beyond doubt by the fact that these parties are assessed under section 153A/153C of the Act by the same AO who has framed assessment in case of the appellant assessee. Further, the assessee furnished details such as ledger copy, confirmation of the parties and bank statement showing amount transferred through banking channel along with audited financial statement showing substantial funds in their respective financial statements. The AO was also having access to all these documentary evidences being the AO of the loan parties but no infirmity was pointed out by the AO in all these preliminary evidences based on conclusive or corroborative material. Thus, in our considered view the assessee has duly discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act by placing the documentary evidences with respect to identity of the parties, genuineness of the transactions and credit worthiness of the parties. Further, under the provision of section 68 of the Act, the assessee is expected to prove the source of credit in its books of account not the source of source. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 85 110.2. Coming to addition of Rs. 2,78,03,279/- against the loan amount credited from Falgun C Patel, we note that the assessee has furnished copy of PAN, confirmation, ledger copy and bank statement. The AO himself found that the party has been regularly filing return of income and for the year under consideration has declared income of Rs. 5,17,35,910/-. It is also important to highlight that the assessee is paying interest @ 14.5% against the loan from said party and also deducted eligible tax at sources. Thus, considering all the facts and materials available on record, we find that the assessee has been able to discharge the primary onus cast under section 68 of the Act. 110.3 Once the loan amount credited in the books of the assessee found to be genuine and addition made under section 68 of the Act got deleted, thus in our considered view the corresponding interest expenses against such loan is to be held as genuine unless revenue brings any material on record suggesting that the interest cost incurred was not wholly and exclusively for the business purpose. The AO has not brought any such material on record. Therefore, in view of the above elaborated discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 110.4 With respect to the CO, raised by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 110.5 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed Now coming to the CO. filed by assessee bearing No. 67/AHD/2019 for the AY 2012-13 IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 86 111. The following objection were raised by the assessee in CO. 1. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case, submission of ' the Respondent as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,87,72,1007-. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case, various details \ submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity of the various loan parties as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 36,63,27,597/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission i made by the Respondent has rightly held that from verification of the ledger account of the eight parties namely (i) Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd, (ii) Three C Surveys Pvt.Ltd (iii) Deesha Tie Up Pvt.Ltd, (iv) Ashishbhai Shah, (v) Laxmi Dyechem (vi) Samket Enterprise, (vii) Gokul Refoils and Solvents and (viii) Sarvashanti Properties Pvt.Ltd, it is noticed that the Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid eight companies from whom unsecured loan received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the AO of Rs. 92,33,712/-. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has also held that in respect of unsecured loan received from three parties namely (i) Adi Corporation, (ii) Vaibhav Capital Management and (iii) Shri Falgun C. Patel are genuine and as the Respondent has paid interest to the three entities / individuals after deducting TDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the Respondent from the three entities / individuals were not used for the purpose of business of the Respondent and it has been used for any other purpose, the interest paid to the three entities / individuals is required to be treated as for the business purpose and the same is allowable as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the interest disallowed by the AO is not justified and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest mad the by the AO. 5. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection. 112. At the outset, with respect to the CO, raised by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 112.1 In the result, the CO raised by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Now coming ITA No. 148/AHD/2018 an appeal by the Assessee for the AY 2013-14 IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 87 113. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in partly allowing the appeal. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1(a). The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at 20% for an amount of Rs. 71,02,500/- out of the unaccounted receipt of Rs. 3,55,12,500/- of AbhishreeAdroid project. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that the Page No. 73 to 124 of Annexure A/16 has been found and seized from the office premises of Shri Anil Shah and Atul Shah at B-406, Wall Street-ll, Ahmedabad on the basis of which the unaccounted cash receipts of AbhishreeAdroid project has been worked out by the AO, the provisions of section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C is applicable in their cases and the same cannot be made applicable in the case of the appellant company. (c) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that in absence of the statement of Shri Atul Shah and Anil Shah in respect of seized Annexure A/16 Page No. 75 to 124 and in absence of any incriminating material being found from the office premises of appellant company and residential premises of the directors of the appellant company, the material found and seized from the third party is required to be treated as dumb document in the case of the appellant company. 3(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at 20% of Rs. 22,00,000/- out of unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- of AbhishreeEcostead project on the basis of seized material page No. 75 to 124 of Annexure A/16 found and seized from the office premises of Shri Anil Shah and Shri Atul Shah at B- 406, Wall Street-ll, Ahmedabad. (b) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not treating the seized the seized Annexure A/16 Page 73 to 124 found and seized from the possession of Shri Anil Shah and Shri Atul Shah at B-406, Wall Street-II, Ahmedabad as dumb document in the case of the appellant company in absence of any statement of Shri Anil Shah &Atul Shah and in absence of any cogent material and/or independent clinching evidences being brought on record during the investigation proceedings and no cogent material and independent clinching evidences have been brought on record by the A.O during the course of assessment proceedings. (C) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that the provisions of secton 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C in respect of seized pages 73 to 124 of Annexure A/16 is applicable in the case of person from whose possession the seized material is found and not in the case of appellant company. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing. 114. The only issue raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 1 to 3 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of 20% of unaccounted cash IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 88 receipt of Rs. 3,55,12,500 and Rs. 1,10,00,000/-from the Abhishree Avenue and Abhishree Ecostead project of the assessee. 115. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assesse. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 115.1 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Now coming to ITA No. 189/AHD/2018, an appeal by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14. 116. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,72,10,000/- being 80% of unaccounted cash receipts on projects without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited in bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assessee had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,63,54,290/- being duplicate addition of unaccounted cash receipts on projects without appreciating that as established in assessment order, (except figures of Rs. 3,54,12,500/- & Rs. 1,10,00,000/) all other amounts were based upon separate seized material, that transactions were established pertaining to assessee and that on 'receipt' basis, the additions were to be upheld in hands of assessee irrespective of application of these amounts in hands of any other persons. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on issue of unsecured loans holding that no incriminating material was found in search on this issue without appreciating that first IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 89 proviso to section 153A clearly mandates AO to assess or reassess total income of each year falling within section 153A(1)(a) 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the fact that while concluding the assessment following the notice issued under Section 153A(1)(a) of the Act, is it necessary that any incriminating material ought to have been unearthed in the search under Section 132 of the Act to make any additions to the returns filed by the assessee following notice under Section 153A(1)(a)? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 14,13,50,000/- on issue of unsecured loans without appreciating that assessee had not proved genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders for interest-free unsecured loans taken from Raju Barter entities (Jignesh Hiralal Shah and Deesha tie-up Ltd) were found to be unexplained and were accommodation entries sourced from Shinsh Chandrakant Shah and other accommodation entry providers, that for others, either confirmation or ITR was not filed or they had filed negligible returns of income and also that, considering their names reflected also reflected in unaccounted cash transactions in seized data 'CCCCC' sheet, genuineness was not proved. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,13,50,000/- without appreciating that for unsecured loans including those from Raju Barter entities (Jignesh Hiralal Shaha and Deesha tie-up Ltd) since the transaction was unexplained both in hands of creditors as well as assessee, the addition in both cases is justified in view of case laws in Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd. [2016] 75 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta) and Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra [2004] 141 Taxman 574 (Allahabad) as sections 68 & 69 are deeming provisions and effect to both sections has to be given separately in hands of both creditor and assessee. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,36,622/- being interest on unsecured loans from parties as in grounds above without appreciating that such interest was paid on unexplained credits. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” 117. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,72,10,000/- in respect of unaccounted cash receipt from of Rs. 3,55,12,500 and Rs. 1,10,00,000/-from the Abhishree Avenue and Abhishree Ecostead project of the assessee. 118. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 is identical to the issue raised by the revenue in ITA IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 90 No.187/Ahd/2018 for the AY 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the revenue for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 69 of this order against the Revenue. The learned DR and the AR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 119. The next issue raised by the revenue in ground No. 2 is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,63,54,290/- in respect of other unaccounted cash receipt found from the seized documents. 120. There were certain documents seized from the premises of Shri Anil/ Atul Hiralal Shah which were marked as page Nos. 75 to 124 of annexure A-16 which was containing the receipt and payment of the financial transactions. In such document, a receipt of ₹ 15,27,66,790.00, payment of Rs. 11,68,18,867.00 and opening balance at Rs. 5,23,82,548.00 were recorded. The cash receipt of Rs. 15,27,66,790.00 was shown under various heads as detailed under: Nature of receipt Amount On-money 46689750 Mulsana land A/c 37500000 Cash withdrawal 3400000 Cash re eived from satnam 20000000 Waste sale 154540 Sarafi cash Receipt 45000000 Other Misc Receipts 22500 Total 152766790 121. The AO established the correlation of these entries with the books of account of the assessee as detailed under:- 1) An entry was recorded on these pages about the cash of Rs. 2,50,000/- deposited in the bank account in the corporation bank (HO) and in corporation bank account (ORCHARD) of SPIL on date 08-01-2013. On perusal of the bank account statement of the assessee bearing account no. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 91 01000269(HO) and 01000268(ORCHARD), it was found that cash deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- duly reflect in both bank account of the assessee. 2) Further, on these pages a noting was there that the cash of Rs. 50,00,000/- has been received from Shri Mihirbhai Pandya on 05-/01-2013 for 10 th floor of Androit project. On perusal of the sales trail balance filed by the assessee for the FY 2012-13 where it is shown that Shri Mihirbhai Pandya booked the unit no. 1008 (i.e 10 th floor) in adroit project and paid the amount of Rs. 37,38,000/- during the FY 2012-13. 3) Similarly, a noting on these pages was found that the cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been withdrawn by cheque no. 053525 dated 04-01-2013 from corporation bank account (HO). On perusal of the Bank account and cash book produced by the assessee found that the cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been withdrawn from the corporation bank account(HO) bearing account no. 01000269 by the same cheque and date as discussed. 4) Further, these pages contain the details of cash receipt from Shri Satnam whose full name is Shri Satvindersing M Vasu with whom assessee had extensive land deal in Mulsana. His name is also reflecting in the balance sheet of the assessee for the AY 2011-12 as lender. 5) These pages also contain the detail of cash receipt in respect of Mulsana land account. It is found from that the assessee has invested the amount in Mulsana land by way of advance given to Sarthav investment who further given advance to Sarthav Infratech. It is clear that the cash component of this land has gone out of unaccounted cash receipt of the project of the assessee. 121.1 It is clear from above these documents which corroborate with the entries recorded in the books of accounts. Accordingly, the AO treated the above amount of Rs. 15,27,66,790.00 as unaccounted cash receipt for the AY 2013-14. 122. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and in respect of on money of Rs. 4,66,89,750/- submitted that the AO has already made IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 92 addition on the basis of such document in relation the Abhishree Adroit project and Abhishree Ecostead for Rs. 3,54,12,500/- and Rs. 1,10,00,000/- respectively. Therefore such addition has been made twice. 123. The assessee in respect of addition of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- on account of Mulsana land submitted that such land was not acquired by the assessee at all. 123.1 The assessee in respect of addition of Rs. 3,40,000/- on account of cash withdrawal submitted that such cash withdrawal does not pertain to it. These documents were seized from the premises of the Shri Anil Hiralal Ahah and Shri Atul Hiralal Shah, therefore they are responsible to explain such cash withdrawal and not the assessee. Further, the AO has not brought anything on record specially the statement of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Atul Hiralal Shah in respect of such cash withdrawal. 123.2 The assessee in respect of the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, Rs. 4,50,00,000/- Rs. 22,500/ and Rs. 1,54,540/- representing cash receipt from Shri Satnam, Sarafi, Misc. receipt and waste sale respectively submitted that such documents were seized from the premises of the Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Shri Atul Hiralal Shah, therefore as per the provisions of section 132(4) read with section 292C of the Act, such receipt should be considered in the hands of person from whose place it was found, until the AO brings on record that the statement of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Atul Hiralal Shah that the alleged cash was received by the appellant. 124. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO on the reasoning that the sum of Rs. 4,66,89,750/- has already been considered at the time of unaccounted cash receipt from the relevant project and for the remaining addition the AO has not brought on record any cogent material/or clinching evidence being in the form of statement of Shri Anil IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 93 Hiralal Shah and Atul Hiralal Shah that such transactions pertain to the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT (A) deleted the addition made by AO. 125. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT(A) of Rs. 10,63,54,290/- whereas the assessee in CO has supported the deletion of addition by CIT(A) of Rs. 15,27,66,790/-. 126. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in CO No. 68/Ahd/2019 reads as under: 2. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 15,27,66,790/- the same being duplicate addition of unaccounted cash receipts. 127. Both the Ld. DR of the Revenue and the Ld. AR of assessee before us reiterated the contentions by making reference to the order of the authorities below as favorable to them. 128. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that there were receipts which were recorded in the seized documents as elaborated in the preceding paragraph. There were certain entries reflecting in the documents which were duly recorded and matching with the bank and books of the assessee. Therefore the impugned seized documents cannot be treated as dumb documents. As such, each entry reflecting in the seized documents needs to be adjudicated separately and individually. • Receipt of On money In this regard, we note that the AO has made addition of Rs. 4,66,89,750/- on the basis of noting on page Nos. 75 to 124 of annexure A-16 seized from the premises IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 94 of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah/ Anil Hiralal Shah. There is no reference made by the AO that this on money is different from the on money for Rs. 3,54,12,500/- and Rs. 1,10,00,000/- already added as income of the assessee in respect of assessee’s projects namely Abhishree Adroit project and Abhishree Ecostead project respectively for the year under consideration. The learned DR at the time of hearing has not brought anything contrary to the finding of the learned CIT-A. Hence, no addition is warranted in this regard. • Receipt from Mulsana land In this regard, we note that the assessee has not purchased any property at Mulsana Road. Likewise, there was no project carried out by the assessee in that location. It was also observed by the AO that the group concern of the assessee being M/s Sarthav Infrtech has purchased a property on such a location. Thus it seems to us that there was no dealing of whatsoever of the assessee with the impugned land. Furthermore, there was no verification carried out by the AO about the impugned transaction of the property from the related parties. The learned DR at the time of hearing has not brought anything contrary to the finding of the learned CIT-A. Hence, no addition is warranted in this regard. • Cash Withdrawal Admittedly the cash was drawn from the bank as evident from the seized documents. But the question arises whether the withdrawal from the bank represents the unaccounted income of the assessee. There is no mention about the banks where from the cash was withdrawn. It was found out from the premises of the parties namely Shri Anil Hiralala Shah/ Atul Hiralal shah, thus the provisions of section 132(4A) read with section 292C of the Act provides the presumption that cash withdrawal belongs to the parties from whose possession the documents are found until and unless some nexus is established with the assessee. However, we find that no such nexus was established. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT-A, and thus hold that no addition is warranted in the given facts and circumstances. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 95 • Receipt from Satnam/ Cash receipt from the sale of wastage/ Sharfi Receipts and Misc. Receipts as detailed under Cash reeived from satnam 20000000 Waste sale 154540 Sarafi cash Receipt 45000000 Other Misc Receipts 22500 Total 152766790 128.1 The above receipts were recorded in the seized document but there was no nexus established by the AO that such cash receipt was connected to the assessee. Admittedly, the document relating to the cash receipt was recovered from the premises of Shri Anil Hiral shah/ Atul Hiralal shah, thus the provisions of section 132(4A) read with section 292C of the Act provides the presumption that transaction recorded on such pages belongs to the parties from whose possession the documents are found until and unless some nexus is established with the assessee. However we find that no such connection was established. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT-A, and thus hold that no addition is warranted in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 129. As far the issue raised in the CO, at the outset, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 130. The next issue raised by the Revenue in ground number 3 to 7 of its appeal is that the leaned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,13,50,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) further IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 96 erred in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,36,622/- paid on such loans. 131. The books of accounts of the assessee during the year under consideration has been credited by an amount of Rs. 14,13,50,000/- from the different parties detailed as under: S. No. Name of creditor Amount in Rs. 1. Adi Corporation 2,50,00,000/- 2. Amarpali Fincap Pvt Ltd 11,00,00,000/- 3. Jignesh Shah 13,50,000/- 4. Deesha Tie-up Ltd 50,00,000/- Total 14,13,50,000/- 132. The AO in the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Besides the AO also disallowed the interest expenses amounting to Rs. 80,36,622/- paid on account of impugned unsecured loan. 133 On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. 134. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A whereas the assessee in the CO has supported the decision of learned CIT-A. 135. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No.68/Ahd/2019 is reproduced as under: 3. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts, submission made by the Respondent to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of lender parties as IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 97 well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 16,09,22,877/- on account of unsecured loan. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission of the Respondent has rightly held that in respect of unsecured loan received from three parties namely (i) Deesha Tie Up Pvt.Ltd and (ii) Jignesh Shah, the Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid two parties from whom the unsecured ban has been received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified in respect of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties and has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Ld. AO on account of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties of Rs. 1,07,48,951/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has held that unsecured loan received from four parties namely (i) Adi Corporation, (ii) Amrapali Fincap Pvt.Ltd, (iii) Adi Enterprise and (iv) Falgun C. Patel are genuine and therefore, I have deleted the addition made in respect of unsecured loan of aforesaid four parties in Ground of Appeal No. II and on verification of the facts, the appellant company has paid interest to four parties after deducting the IDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the appellant from the four parties were not used for the purpose of business of the appellant and it has been used for any other purpose, the interest paid to the four parties is required to be treated as for the business purpose and the same is allowable as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the interest disallowed by the AO is not justified and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest mad the by the AO. 136. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order whereas, on the contrary, the learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order. 137. We have heard the rival contention of both parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the appellant assessee during the year under consideration received unsecured loan from different parties and the details of the same have already been reproduced somewhere in previous paragraphs. The AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and made addition to the total income of the assessee and also disallowed the amount of interest on such loan which came to be deleted by the learned CIT(A). 138. At the outset, we note that in case of loan parties namely Amarpali Fincap Pvt. Ltd, the appellant assessee received loan of Rs. 11 crore, which was fully repaid during the year itself along with interest of Rs. 43,12,603/-. All these IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 98 transactions were carried out through banking channel. The assessee also provided copy of ledger account, confirmation PAN etc. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 and also in case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji reported in 42 taxmann.com 251, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) as far as deletion made by him with regard to the loan from the above mentioned party. 139. Moving forward to issue of deletion of addition by the learned CIT(A) on account of loan from the party Deesha Tie Up Pvt Ltd for Rs. 50 Lakh. The identity of the party got establish beyond doubt by the fact that this party was assessed under section 153A/153C of the Act by the same AO who has framed assessment in case of the appellant assessee. Further, the assessee furnished details such as ledger copy, confirmation of the party and bank statement showing amount transferred through banking channel along with audited financial statement showing substantial funds in their financial statements. The AO was also having access to all these documentary evidences being the AO of the loan party but no infirmity was pointed out by the AO in these preliminary evidences based on conclusive or corroborative material. Thus, in our considered view the assessee has duly discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act by placing the documentary evidences with respect to identity, credit worthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. Further, under the provision of section 68 of the Act, the assessee is expected to prove the source of credit in its books of accounts and not the source of source. 139.1 Coming to addition of Rs. 2.5 crore against the loan amount credited from the party namely Adi Corporation, we note that the assessee has furnished copy of PAN, confirmation, ledger copy and bank statement. The AO himself found that the party has been regularly filing return of income and for the year under consideration has declared income of Rs. 57,86,620/-. It is also important to IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 99 highlight the fact that the assessee is paying interest against the loan from said party and also deducted eligible tax at sources. The assessee in the previous year has also received loan from this party time to time which has been returned back subsequently. While the deciding the issue for the previous A.Ys, we held the transaction of loan from this party as genuine transaction. Thus, considering all the facts and materials available on record, we find that the assessee has been able to discharge the primary onus cast under section 68 of the Act. 139.2 Coming to addition of Rs. 13.5 lakh against the alleged unsecured loan from the party namely Shri Jignesh Shah. The appellant assessee during appellate proceeding claimed that the amount of Rs. 13.5 lakh from said party was received in earlier year against share application but the share was not allotted. Therefore, the same was transferred to loan account. Thus, no fresh loan from said party was credited during the year. The claim of the assessee has been found true by the learned CIT(A). The learned DR before us not brought any contrary material to controvert the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(A) in connection with the alleged loan from the party namely Shri Jignesh Shah. 139.3 Once the loan amount credited in the books of the assessee is found to be genuine and addition made under section 68 of the Act got deleted, thus in our considered view the corresponding interest expenses against such loan to be held as genuine unless revenue brings any material on record suggesting that the interest cost incurred not wholly and exclusively for the business purposes. The AO has not brought any such material on record. 139.4 Therefore, in view of the above elaborated discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 100 140 As far the issue raised in the CO, at the outset, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 140.1 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Now coming to CO filed by assessee bearing No. 68/AHD/2019 AY 2013- 14 141 The assessee has raised the following objection: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition being 20% of Rs. 3,55,12,500/- being unaccounted cash receipts on projects of the Abhishree Adroid Project amounting to Rs. 71,02,500/- and 20% of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- being unaccounted cash receipts on project of Abhishree Ecostead amounting to Rs. 22,00,000/-. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 15,27,66,790/- the same being duplicate addition of unaccounted cash receipts. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts, submission made by the Respondent to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of lender parties as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 16,09,22,877/- on account of unsecured loan. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission of the Respondent has rightly held that in respect of unsecured loan received from three parties namely (i) Deesha Tie Up Pvt.Ltd and (ii) Jignesh Shah, the Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid two parties from whom the unsecured ban has been received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified in respect of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties and has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Ld. AO on account of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties of Rs. 1,07,48,951/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has held that unsecured loan received from four parties namely (i) Adi Corporation, (ii) Amrapali Fincap Pvt.Ltd, (iii) Adi Enterprise and (iv) Falgun C. Patel are genuine and therefore, I have deleted the addition made in respect of unsecured loan of aforesaid four parties in Ground of Appeal No. II and on verification of the facts, the appellant company has paid interest to four parties after deducting the IDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the appellant from the four parties were not used for the purpose of business of the appellant and it has been used for any other purpose, the interest paid to the four parties is required to be treated as for the business purpose and the same is allowable as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the interest disallowed by the AO is not IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 101 justified and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest mad the by the AO. 6. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection.” 142. The first objection raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the net profit at 20% of the unaccounted cash receipt of Rs. 3,55,12,500/-and Rs. 1,10,00,000/- form the project namely Abhisree Adroit and Abhishree Ecostead. 143. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of objection for the AY 2013-14 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assesse. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds raised in the CO by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 144 The second objection raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 15,27,66,790/- made by the AO on account of other unaccounted receipts. 145. At the outset, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 102 146. The next issue raised by the assessee in objection 3 to 5 is that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 16,09,22,877/- on account of unsecured loan and interest thereon of Rs. 1,07,48,951/- only. 147. At the outset we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 147.1 In the result, the CO raised by the assessee is partly allowed. Now coming to ITA No. 149/AHD/2018 an appeal by the Assessee for the AY 2014-15 148. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1(a). The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at 20% i.e. Rs. 1,10,07,500/- on account of on-money receipts of Rs. 5,50,37,500/- in respect of project Abshishree Adroit as worked out by the A.O. (b) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the working of unaccounted cash receipts of Abhishree Adroit project of the appellant company by the AO on the basis of seized Page No. 1 to 6 of Annexure A/2 found and seized from the premises of Shri SanketVora (Shah) a third party. (c) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not treating the seized pages 1 to 6 of Annexure A/2 found and seized from the residence of Shri SanketVora (Shah) as dump document in the case of the appellant in absence of any incriminating material being found and seized to justify the allegation of the AO about the unaccounted cash receipts in respect of units booked in Abhishree Adroit Project by the two parties namely Shree Ram Realties and Apple Infrastructure during the course of search proceedings in the case of appellant and the search proceedings at the residence of directors of the appellant company and in absence of statement of Shri SanketVora (Shah) being brought on record by the AO during the course of assessment proceeding to justify the allegation of the unaccounted receipts of Rs. 5,50,37,500/- in respect of project Abhishree Adroit. (d) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that provisions of section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C of the Act is applicable in the case of Shri SanketVora (Shah) and not in the case of the appellant company and unless and until the presumption applicable against Shri SanketVora (Shah) has not been rebutted by Shri SanketVora (Shah) in his statement recorded during the course of search proceeding and/or in the post search enquiry as well as offering the explanation during the course of assessment proceedings in his case in respect of material found and seized from his IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 103 possession, hence no adverse inference can be drawn in the case of the appellant company. 2.(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the other unaccounted receipts of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- worked out by the AO on the basis of seized loose paper page No. 15 & 16 of Annexure A/1 found and seized from the residence of the directors of the appellant company. (b) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the justifiable explanation of the appellant that the notings found to be noted on the seized loose paper page No. 15 & 16 of Annexure A/1 is in respect of expected fund flow for receipts and payments and from the seized loose paper, no noting of cash receipt and cash payment has been found. (c) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at of Rs. 25,00,000/- i.e. 20% of 1,25,00,000/- being other unaccounted cash receipts of Abhishree Adroit Project on the basis of seized material page No. 15 to 16 of Annexure A/1 found and seized from the directors of the appellant company. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing.” 149. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground no 1 is that the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of 20% of unaccounted receipt of Rs. 5,50,37,500 from the Abhishree adroit project of the assessee. 150. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assesse. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 151. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 2 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the net profit at @20% of other unaccounted receipt of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- in respect of Abhishree adroit Project based on the seized documents found from the premises of the director of the assessee. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 104 152. There were certain documents seized from the residential premises of the director namely Shri Sanjay Sutaria which contains a receipt of ₹75 lakhs in cash from Shri Shailish Bhai as evident from page 15 of annexure A1 being seized document against the showroom numbers 105-106 pertaining to the financial year 2013-14 corresponding to AY 2014-15. On perusal of the sale trial balance filed by the assessee for the FY 2013-14, it was found that assessee has received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- against show room no. 105-106 from Shri Shalish Natubhai Patel. Accordingly, the AO treated the above amount of Rs. 75 lacs as unaccounted cash receipt for the AY 2014-15. 152.1 Similarly, it was found based on page 16 of annexure A1 being a seized document containing the amount of cash receipt of ₹ 50 lakhs from Shri Nitesh in the month of May 2013 which was repaid along with the interest at the rate of 18% in the month of November 2013. The AO has not found any reference in respect of this receipt by reason of both the receipt and payments are in cash. However the name of the Nishitbhai Mahndera appears in the excel sheet “ccccc.xls” on 9-07-2010 when payment of Rs. 38,000/ has been made on account of Abhishree Avenue. Accordingly the AO treated the above amount of Rs. 50 lacs as unaccounted cash receipt for the AY 2014-15. 152.2 Both the aforesaid entries were pertaining to the financial year 2013-14 and therefore the AO treated the amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-( 75,00,000/- + 50,00,000/-) as unaccounted cash received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts and added to the total income. 153. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 153.1 The assessee in respect of the addition of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on account of other unaccounted receipt submitted that this addition has two part one is Rs. 75 lacs and another is of Rs. 50 Lacs. The paper contain information regarding the IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 105 addition of Rs. 75 lacs is an provisional noting, expected collection and payment of service tax also mentions on such page. Such page does not bear any date and nowhere mentions on such pages that the cash has been received. 154. In respect of the remaining addition of Rs. 50 lacs, the assessee submitted that such loose paper bears page no. 16 does not contain the name of any director of the company, signature of any authorized person of appellant. The name mention on such page is Shri Nishit bhai, however the name of member of Abhishree Avenue is Shri Nishit Mehanderbhai Shah. 155. However the Ld. CIT(A) followed his decision as taken in AY 2012-13 for the unaccounted receipt of cash and estimated income @ 20% of such receipt of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- 156. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The assessee is in C.O. against the confirmation of the addition made by the learned CIT-A in part for Rs. 25,00,000/- whereas the revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs. 4,65,30,000/-. 157. The relevant ground of appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 190/Ahd/2019 reads as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,65,30,000/- being 80% of unaccounted cash receipts without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited in bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assesses had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 158. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 69/Ahd/2019 is reproduced as under: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- being 20% of net profit margin estimated on Rs.1,25,00,000/- on account IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 106 of other unaccounted cash receipts of Abhishree Adroit Project. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have decided the entire addition. 159. The learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order whereas, on the contrary, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order. 160. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As regards the receipt of ₹75 lakhs shown from the party namely Shri Shailish Bhai, we find that there was the sale of the showroom by the assessee as evident from the seized documents. Therefore it can be concluded that the impugned amount of receipt represents the unaccounted money of the assessee relating to its business. Therefore the same should be made subject to tax at the rate of 8% in parity of the different projects carried out by the assessee where the profit has been estimated at the rate of 8% of the unaccounted receipts. 160.1 With respect to the receipt of ₹50 lakhs we note that the amount received by the assessee has been repaid which is evident from the seized documents discussed above. Thus there remains no ambiguity to the fact that there was no element of income in the receipt of ₹50 lakhs and therefore no addition of whatsoever is required to be made in the given facts and circumstances. 160.2 Therefore the grounds of appeal of the assessee along with the objection is partly allowed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 160.3 In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed. Now coming ITA No. 190/AHD/2018 an appeal by the Revenue for the AY 2014-15 IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 107 161 The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,65,30,000/-- being 80% of unaccounted cash receipts without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited in bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assesses had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,56,71,005/- on issue of unsecured loans without appreciating that assessee had not proved genuineness of transactions and credit (worthiness of lenders for interest-free unsecured loans taken from Siddham Management Services, Shri Ram realties as they had filed no/nil/tow income returns and that lender Adi Corp's ere di! worthiness was not proved and also that, considering their names reflected a/so reflected in unaccounted cash transactions in seized data 'CCCCC' sheet, genuineness was not proved. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,56,71,005/- without appreciating that for unsecured loans including those from group entity Siddham Management Services since the transaction was unexplained both in hands of creditor as well as assessee. the addition in both cases is justified in view of case laws in Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd [2016] 75 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta) and Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra [2004] 141 Taxman 574 (Allahabad) as sections 68 & 69 are deeming provisions and effect to both sections has to be given separately in hands of both creditor and assessee. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,41,305/- being interest on unsecured loans from Adi Corp as in grounds above without appreciating that such interest was paid on unexplained credits. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O ( 6 It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A O be restored to the above extent. 162. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground no. 1 is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,65,30,000/- in respect of unaccounted cash receipt of Rs. 5,50,37,500/- from the Abhishree Adroit Project. 163. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 108 in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the revenue for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No.69 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 164. The next issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 2 to 5 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,56,71,005/- made under section 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) further erred in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 29,41,305/- paid on such loans. 164.1 The books of accounts of the assessee, during the year under consideration, has been credited by an amount of Rs. 2,56,71,000/- from the different parties detailed as under: S. No. Name of creditor Amount in Rs. 1. Adi Corporation 60,71,000/- 2. Shri Raam Ram Realities 96,00,000/- 3. Sidham Management Services 1,00,00,000/- Total 2,56,71,000/- 165. The AO in the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Besides the AO also disallowed the interest expense amounting to Rs. 29,41,305/- paid on impugned unsecured loan. 166. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 109 167. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs. 2,86,12,305/- whereas the assessee in the CO has supported the decision of learned CIT-A. 167.1 The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 69/Ahd/2019 is reproduced as under: 3. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts, submission made by the appellant to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthy ess of lender parties as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 2,56,71,005/- on account of unsecured loan. 4 The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission of the Respondent has rightly held that in respect of unsecured loan received from two parties namely (i) Shree Ram Realties and (ii) Siddham Management Services Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid two parties from whom the unsecured loan has been received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified in respect of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid two parties and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Ld. AO on account of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties of Rs. 29,41,305/-. 5. The Ld, CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has held that the unsecured loan received from Adi Corporation is genuine and deleted the addition made in respect of unsecured loan of Adi Corporation and on verification of the facts, the Respo ndent has paid interest to Adi Corporation after deducting the IDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the Respondent from the four parties were not used for the purpose of business of the Respondent and it has been used for any other purpose, the interest paid to Adi Corporation is required to be treated as for the business purpose and the same is allowable as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the interest disallowed by the AO is not justified and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest mad the by the AO. 168. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order whereas, on the contrary, the learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order. 169. We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly the appellant assessee during the year IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 110 under consideration received unsecured loan from different parties and the detail of the same has been reproduced somewhere in previous paragraphs. The AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and made addition to the total income of the assessee and also disallowed the amount of interest on such loan which came to be deleted by the learned CIT(A). 170. At the outset, we note that in case of loan party namely M/s Adi Corporation, the books of accounts of the appellant assessee was credited by Rs. 60,71,0005/- during the year which includes interest of Rs. 2,71,005/-. However the same was fully repaid during the year itself along with interest. All these transaction were carried out through banking channel. The assessee also provided copy of leger account, confirmation PAN etc. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 and also in case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji reported in 42 taxmann.com 251, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) as far as the deletion made by him with regard to loan from above mentioned party. 171. Coming to the addition of Rs. 96 Lakh against the loan amount credited from the party namely Shree Ram Realities, we note that the assessee has furnished copy of PAN, ITR, confirmation, ledger copy and bank statement. The AO himself found that the party has been regularly filing return of income and for the year under consideration has declared income of Rs. 3,62,770/-. Thus considering all the facts and materials available on record, we find that the assessee has been able to discharge the primary onus cast under section 68 of the Act. 172. Moving forward to the issue of deletion of addition by the learned CIT(A) on account of loan from the party namely M/s Sidham Management Services for Rs. 1 crore, the identity of the party got established beyond doubt by the fact that IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 111 this party was being assessed under section 153A/153C of the Act by the same AO who has framed assessment in case of the appellant assessee. Further, the assessee furnished detail such as ledger copy, confirmation of the party and bank statement showing amount transferred through banking channel along with audited financial statement showing substantial funds in their respective financial statements. The AO was also having access to all these documentary evidences being the AO of the loan party but no infirmity was pointed out by the AO in these preliminary evidences based on conclusive or corroborative material. Thus, in our considered view, the assessee has duly discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act by placing the documentary evidence with respect to identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the parties. Further, under the provision of section 68 of the Act, the assessee is expected to prove the source of credit in its books of account and not the source of source. 173. Once, the loan amount credited in the books of the assessee found to be genuine and addition made under section 68 of the Act got deleted, thus in our considered view the corresponding interest expenses against such loan to be held as genuine unless revenue brings any material on record suggesting that the interest cost incurred was not wholly and exclusively for the business purposes. The AO has not brought any such material on record. 173.1 Therefore, in view of above elaborated discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. 174. At the outset we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 174.1 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 112 Now coming to the CO. bearing No. 69/AHD/2019 for the AY 2014-15, filed by assessee 175. The assessee has raised the following cross objections: All the grounds in this Cross - objections are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other:- 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,10,07,500/- being 20% of Rs. 5,50,37,500/- on account of alleged on money receipts worked out by the AO on the basis of seized loose paper Page No. 15 & 16 of Annexure A/1 found and seized from the residence of the directors of the Respondent company. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs, 25,00,000/- being 20% of net profit margin estimated on Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on account of other unaccounted cash receipts of Abhishree Adroit Project. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts, submission made by the appellant to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthy ess of lender parties as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 2,56,71,005/- on account of unsecured loan. 4 The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission of the Respondent has rightly held that in respect of unsecured loan received from two parties namely (i) Shree Ram Realties and (ii) Siddham Management Services Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid two parties from whom the unsecured loan has been received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified in respect of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid two parties and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Ld. AO on account of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties of Rs. 29,41,305/-. 5. The Ld, CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has held that the unsecured loan received from Adi Corporation is genuine and deleted the addition made in respect of unsecured loan of Adi Corporation and on verification of the facts, the Respo ndent has paid interest to Adi Corporation after deducting the IDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the Respondent from the four parties were not used for the purpose of business of the Respondent and it has been used for any other purpose, the interest paid to Adi Corporation is required to be treated as for the business purpose and the same is allowable as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the interest disallowed by the AO is not justified and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest mad the by the AO. 6. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 113 176. The first objection raised by the assessee bearing no. 1 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of 20% of unaccounted receipt of Rs. 5,50,37,500 from the Abhishree adroit project of the assessee. 177. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 147/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the objection raised in the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assesse. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the ground of objection filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 178. The 2 nd issue raised by the assessee in CO. is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the net profit @20% of other un-accounted receipt determined from the seized documents of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- only. 179. At the outset, we note that the objection raised by the assessee has been adjudicated along with assessee’s ground of appeal in IT(SS) No. 149/Ahd/2018 where we have decided the issue vide paragraphs nos. 160 of this order partly in favour of the assessee. For detailed discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence, the ground of objection raised by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 180. The next issue raised by the assessee in objection 3 to 5 is that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 2,56,71,005/- on account of unsecured loan and interest thereon of Rs. 29,41,305/- IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 114 181. At the outset, with respect to the issue raised in the CO. by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 181.1 In the result, the CO raised by the assessee is partly allowed. Now coming to ITA No. 150/AHD/2018 an appeal by the Assessee for the AY 2015-16 182. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in partly allowing the appeal. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1(a) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the unaccounted cash receipts of the project Abhishree Adroit of the appellant company for an amount of Rs. 1,41,57,800/- on the basis of seized loose paper found and seized from the office premises of the appellant company for which though the appellant company has already placed the rebuttal submission to rebut the presumption u/s. 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C applicable in the case of the appellant company in respect of the said seized loose paper. (b) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in estimating the reasonable profit margin at 20% works out at Rs. 28,31,560/- on unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 1,41,57,800/-of the project Abhishree Adroit. 2(a). The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the addition on account of other unaccounted receipts of Rs. 39,00,000/- (i.e. 20% of Rs. 1,95,00,000/-) on the basis of seized loose paper Page No. 87 of Annexure A/6 found and seized from the residence of directors of the appellant company. (b) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition on account of unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in respect of Abhishree Residency -III on the basis of Page No. 87 of Annexure A/6 though the entries found to be noted against Shri GanpatiChowdhary in respect of Abhishree Residency - III aggregating to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, nowhere, the noting of cash was mentioned and Mr. GanpatChowdhary has not made any booking in Abhishree Residency - III project. (c) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the other unaccounted cash receipt of Rs. 95,00,OOO/- for the figures noted against the name of Shri GanpatiChowdhary against Abhishree Corporate Park on the basis of seized Page No. 87 of Annexure A/6. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 115 (d) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the appellant company's submission that in Abhishree Corporate Park, Unit No. 9 was booked by RajuldeviGanpatrajChowdharyand Unit No. 10 in Abhishree Corporate Park was booked by KavitaSiddhartChowdhary for which the appellant company has already received the consideration by account payee cheque and the appellant company executed the conveyance deed in favour of buyers on 09.04.2013, whereas on Page No. 87 of Annexure A/6, no dates have been mentioned. Therefore, other unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 95,00,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) for F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 is bad in law. (e) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating 20% of net profit margin at Rs. 39,00,000/- on other unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- of Abhishree Corporate Park. 3(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the Hawala Transaction of Rs. 7,48,04,900/- worked out by the AO on the basis of seized material Page No. 14 to 16 of A-1 seized from the premises of Shri Atul Shah and seized Pages 42 to 44, 54 of A-2 from the premises of Shri AsitVora pertaining to the appellant company. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating 20% of profit margin at Rs. 1,49,60,980/- for the hawala transactions of Rs. 7,48,04,900/-. (c) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts that provisions of section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C of the Act in respect of the material found and seized from the premises of Shri Atul Shah and AsitVora is applicable in their cases and not in the case of the appellant company. (d) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that in absence of any statement of Shri Atul Shah and AsitVora being brought on record by the AO against the appellant company in respect of the seized material found from their premises, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have treated the said seized material as dumb document in the case of the appellant company and no Hawala transaction pertaining to the appellant company can be worked out on the basis of the dumb document. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts without giving any show cause notice for enhancement to the appellant company for estimating the net profit margin on Hawala Transaction of Rs. 7,48,04,900/- though the A.O in the assessment order has not taken the cognizance of the said Hawala Transaction for making any addition in the assessment order. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing.” 183. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 1 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of 20% of unaccounted receipt of Rs. 1,41,57,800/- from the Abhishree Adroit project. 184. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2015-16 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 116 in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No.52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assesse. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 185. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 2 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the net profit at @20% of other unaccounted cash receipt of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and Rs. 95,00,000/- from the projects namely, Abhishree Residency III and Abhishree Corporate Park respectively, determined from the seized documents found at premises of the director of assessee company. 186. The AO during the assessment proceeding based on page 87 of annexure A6 of seized document found that the assessee has received cash of ₹ 1,95,00,000/- from Shri Ganpat Chaudhery during the FY 2014-15 relating to the projects namely Abishree Residency III & Abhishree Corporate Park. Accordingly, the AO sought explanation with regard to the nature of receipt but the assessee failed to explain. Hence the AO in absence of explanation from the assessee treated the same as unexplained cash of assessee under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 187. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the addition of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- was made on the basis of documents seized from the residence of Shri Sanjay Sutaria and Dharmen Sutaria. As such, there was a proposal of booking of plot in Abhishrii Residency III scheme. It was only the detail of expected cheque receipt from Shri Ganpat bhai. However, the two family members of Shri Ganpat Bhai booked the unit no. 9 and IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 117 10 of Abhsiree corporate project and assessee received all the amount through banking channel. 188. The Ld. CIT(A) reject the contention of the assessee and followed his earlier order by estimating 20% of unaccounted receipt of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- only as income from the project. 189. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of the addition made by the learned CIT-A in part for Rs. 39,00,000/- whereas the revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs. 8,67,70,160/- only. 189.1 The relevant ground of the revenue appeal in ITA No. 191/Ahd/2018 reads as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,67,70.160/- being 80% of unaccounted cash receipts without appreciating that friese receipts had been deposited in bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assesses had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 190. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 70/Ahd/2019 reads as under: 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.39,00,000/- being 20% of net profit margin estimated on Rs. 1,95,00,000/- on account of other unaccounted cash receipts of Abhishree Corporate Park. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 191. The learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order whereas, on the contrary, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 118 192. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2015-16 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 147/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No.52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assesse. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 193. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground no 3 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the net profit at @20% of the hawala transaction of Rs. 7,48,04,900/- based on seized documents. 194. During the course of search proceeding, several documents of incriminating nature containing detail of Hawala and cash transaction were found from the premises of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah and Shri Ashit Vohra. The seized papers were marked as page Nos. 14 to 16 of Annexure A-1, pages 42 to 44 and 54 of annexure A-2. The pages 43-44 of annexure A-2 is an MOU dated 14-05-2014 in respect of plot of Abhishree Orchard having area 8132 sq yard. 195. As per this MOU, the Ethos Solution Pvt Ltd. was purchasing party and appellant assessee was confirming party whereas lender was Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. at a total deal price/ consideration of Rs. 5,82,26,000/- only. However, the amount of Rs. 2,32,44,532/- shall be payable at the time of signing of MOU. The confirmation letter of receiving the sum of Rs. 2,32,44,532/- through RTGS is also a seized and marked as page no. 42 of annexure A-2 as discussed above. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 119 196. The AO on verification of the sale trial balance filed by the assessee found that the Ethos Solution Pvt Ltd is a creditor to tune of Rs. 5,81,45,000/- under the plot nos. 179, 180 and 247 related to the project of Abhishree Orchard. 196.1 However, the assesse in its explanation denied such transaction but failed to explain how the banking transaction matching with the books of accounts of the assessee. The AO in absence of any explanation treated the above transaction as accommodation entry transaction of Rs. 5,82,26,000/- received from the Ethos Solution Pvt Ltd and added to the total income of the assessee. 196.2 The AO further found from the noting on the seized documents that M/s Madhav Organizer paid Rs. 23,70,500/- by cheque/RTGS against plot no. 236 and after cheque receipt cash of Rs. 23,70,000/- has been given back to Shri Mahesh Kumar. However, the Plot no. 236 as per the sales trial filed by the assessee are booked in the name of M/s Vasupujya Traders Pvt Ltd. and reflect as creditors to tune of Rs. 9000/- only. Accordingly, it is clear that Shri Mahesh Kumar is the actual buyer who paid the cash at the time of booking of plot and after the cancellation of the booking returned back such cash to Shri Mahesh Kumar. Therefore, the amount received from M/s Madhav Organizer is nothing but accommodation entry. Accordingly, the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash credit. 196.3 The AO further noted from the seized document that an amount of Rs. 98,25,000/- has been received from M/s Labdhi Finance which is a proprietorship concern of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah who is the majority shareholder in the assessee company and main person of accommodation entry group. Accordingly, the AO treated such amount as an accommodation entry and added to the total income of the assessee. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 120 196.4 Further, on seized documents bearing page no. 54 of the Annexure A-2, title Orchard and Adroit Hawala entry, contained the details of payment receipt in cash and cheque between 12-05-2014 & 19-05-2014. This page also contains the utilization of such fund between 13-05-2014 & 24-05-2014. The details of transaction is summarized as under: Receipts (Rs.) Payment (Rs.) Cheque/RTGS Cash Total Cheque/RTGS Cash Total 3,54,40,032/- 43,83,400/- 3,98,23,432/- 1,63,11,032/- 2,35,42,000/- 3,98,53,032/- 196.5 These transaction also matched with the noting on seized document bearing page nos. 14 to 16 of annexure A-1 seized from the premises of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah. Accordingly the AO treated these transaction as Hawala Transaction and the cash receipt of Rs. 43,83,400/- was added to the total income of the assessee on account of unaccounted cash receipt under section 69A of the Act for the AY 2015-16. 196.6 Therefore in view of the above the AO added total unexplained credit of Rs. 7,48,04,900/- ( 5,82,26,000/ + 98,25,000/ + 23,70,500/- + 43,83,400/-) under section 68/ 69A of the Act for the AY 2015-16. However the AO omitted to add this addition to the computation of assessed income. 197. The learned CIT(A) during the appellate proceeding noted that the AO has made discussion in his order vide para 8.3 on page 89-92 but the same was not added in the total income. Hence the learned CIT(A) taking suo-moto cognizance of the same made partial addition on above issue by observing as under: 4.2.6 The AO in Para 10 under the head “Basis of taxation” on page 110 of the assessment order in the table under the issue “” Hawala transaction” for A.Y. 2015-16 has stated an amount of Rs.7,48,04.900/- for which the AO has made discussion in Para 8.3 on page 89 to 92 of the assessment order. The AO has not considered the said amount of Rs. 7,48,04,900/- for making the addition on account of difference of GP as the AO on Page 114 of the assessment order in the table 'Under the heading " Estimated GP " has made an error of not considering thi amount of Rs. 7,48,04,900/-. I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 7,48,04,900/- under the issue Hawala transactions is also required to be considered as the unaccounted cash receipts of the project of the appellant company and on which the reasonable profit margin of 20% is to be determined for making the addition IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 121 to the total income of the appellant company for A.Y. 2015-16. The reasonable profit margin of 20% on unaccounted cash receipt of the project of the appellant of Rs. 7,48,04,900/- works out at Rs. 1,49,60,980/- is required to be added to the total income of the appellant for A.Y. 2015-16 . I hereby direct the AO to re-compute the /total income of the appellant after making the addition of Rs. 1,49,60,980/-. As the / discussion made by the AO that unaccounted cash receipts of the projects of the / appellant has been routed by arranging the cheque funds from the books of I accounts of the appellant and the same has been used by the appellant for the I purpose of development and construction work of the appellant, considering the reasonable profit margin of 20% of unaccounted cash receipt of the project of the appellant company for an amount of _Rs_ 7,48,04,900/-_ worked out_ to ___Rs.1,49,60,980/- adding to the total income for A.Y. 2015-16 is justified. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 198. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of the addition made by the learned CIT-A in part for Rs. 1,49,60,980/- whereas the revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs. 8,67,70,160/-. 199. The relevant ground of the revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 191/Ahd/2018 reads as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,67,70.160/- being 80% of unaccounted cash receipts without appreciating that friese receipts had been deposited in bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assesses had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 200. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 70/Ahd/2019 reads as under: 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the 20% of profit margin at Rs. 1,49,60,980/- for the hawala transactions of Rs. 7,48,04,900/-. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 201. The learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order whereas, on the IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 122 contrary, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order. 202. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2015-16 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 147/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No.52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assesse. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 202.1 In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed. Now coming to ITA No. 191/AHD/2018 an appeal by the Revenue for the AY 2015-16 203. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,67,70,160/- being 80% of unaccounted cash receipts without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited in bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assesses had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,10,61.475/- on issue of unsecured loans without appreciating that assesses had not proved genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness" of lenders in so much that interest- free unsecured loans taken from Raju Barter entity (Neminath Trades Pvt Ltd) were found to be unexplained accommodation entries sourced from Shirish Chandrakant Shah and other accommodation entry providers, that Adi Corporation. Sidhham Management Services had meager incomes and also that, considering their names reflected also reflected in unaccounted cash transactions in seized data 'CCCCC' sheet, genuineness was not proved. 3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3.10.61.201/- without appreciating that for unsecured loans including those from group entity Siddham Management Services and Raju Barter entity (Neminath Trades Pvt Ltd) since IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 123 the transaction was unexplained both in hands of creditor as well as assessee. the addition in both cases is justified in view of case laws m Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd [20161 75 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta) and Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra (2004) 141 Taxman 574 (Allahabad) as sections 68 & 69 are deeming provisions and effect to both sections has to be given separately in hands of both creditor and assessee. 4 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,41.3OS/- being interest on unsecured loans from Sidhham Management Services as in grounds above without appreciating that such interest was paid on unexplained credits and also on unsecured loans from Shree Ram Realties loan from which had been held as unexplained credit in earlier assessment years. 5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A O. be restored to the above extent. 204. The First issue raised by the revenue in ground no. 1 is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,67,70,160/- in respect of unaccounted cash receipt determined based on seized materials. 205. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2015-16 is identical to the issue raised by the revenue in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 69 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 206. The next issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 2 to 5 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,10,61,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) further erred in deleting the disallowance of interest expense of Rs. 29,41,305/- paid on such loans. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 124 206.1 The books of accounts of the assessee, during the year under consideration, has been credited by an amount of Rs. 3,10,61,000/- from the different parties detailed as under: S. No. Name of creditor Amount in Rs. 1. Adi Corporation 50,00,000/- 2. Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd. 6,33,000/- 3. Sidham Management Services 2,54,28,201/- Total 3,10,61,000/- 207. The AO in the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Besides, the AO also disallowed the interest amounting to Rs. 29,41,305/- paid on impugned unsecured loan. 208. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. 209. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, he revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs. 3,40,02,505/- whereas the assessee in the CO has supported the decision of learned CIT-A. 210. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO is reproduced as under: 4. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts, submission made by the Respondent to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of lender parties as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 3,21,93,475/- on account of unsecured loan. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission of the Respondent has rightly held that in respect of unsecured loan from two parties namely (i) Siddham Management Services and (ii) Shree Ram Realties. Respondent has paid interest to two parties and TDS has also been deducted and deposited to the Government Account and the unsecured loan received from Siddham Management Service and Shree Ram Realties, the loan has been used by the Respondent for the business purpose and thus, interest of Rs, 67,38,0517- paid to the aforesaid three parties is also required to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In respect of M/s. Adi Corporation and Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd., the Ld. CIT(A) has already deleted the addition made in respect unsecured loan of the two entities in Ground No. II, the addition made by the AO on account IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 125 of unexplained expenditure (interest on unsecured loans) has been correctly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 211. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order whereas, on the contrary, the learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order. 212. We have heard the rival contention of both parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the appellant assessee during the year under consideration received unsecured loan from different parties and the details of the same have been reproduced somewhere in the previous paragraphs. The AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and made addition to the total income of the assessee and also disallowed the amount of interest expense on such loan which came to be deleted by the learned CIT(A). 213. At the outset we note that similar addition has been made by the AO in earlier assessment (between A.Y. 2009-10 to 2014-15) against the unsecured loan received from the above parties. The addition in earlier years has been made on identical reasoning which came to be deleted by the learned CIT(A). Subsequently, we also deleted the addition made by the AO on appeal preferred by the Revenue. The elaborate finding for earlier years has been given in previous paragraphs of this order. Therefore, considering all the facts and material available on record, we find that the assessee has been able to discharge the primary onus cast under section 68 of the Act and we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. 213.1 At the outset we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 126 213.2 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Now coming to CO filed by assessee bearing No. 70/AHD/2019 AY 2015- 16 214. The objection raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,10,07,500/- being 20% of Rs. 5,50,37,500/- on account of alleged on money receipts worked out by the AO on the basis of seized loose paper Page No. 15 & 16 of Annexure A/1 found and seized from the residence of the directors of the Respondent company. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- being 20% of net profit margin estimated on Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on account of other unaccounted cash receipts of Abhishree Adroit Project. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts, submission made by the appellant to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of lender parties as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 2,56,71,005/- on account of unsecured loan. 4 The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission of the Respondent has rightly held that in respect of unsecured loan received from two parties namely (i) Shree Ram Realties and (ii) Siddham Management Services, Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid two parties from whom the unsecured loan has been received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified in respect of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid two parties and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Ld. AO on account of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties of Rs. 29,41,305/-. . 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission j made by the Respondent has held that the unsecured loan received from Adi : Corporation is genuine and deleted the addition made in respect of unsecured loan of Adi Corporation and on verification of the facts, the Respo ndent has paid interest to Adi Corporation after deducting the IDS and the AO in the assessment order has j nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the Respondent from the four parties were not used for the purpose of business of theRespondent and it has been used for any other purpose, the interest paid to Adi i Corporation is required to be treated as for the business purpose and the same is allowable as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the interest disallowed by the AO is not justified and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest mad the by the AO. 6. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection. 215 The issue raised by the assessee in objection no. 1 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of 20% of unaccounted receipt of Rs. 1,41,57,800/- from M/s Abhishree Adroit project of the assessee. 216. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of objection for the AY 2015-16 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 127 ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No.147/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for objection raised in the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assesse. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for objection raised in the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Hence, the ground of objection filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 217. The next issue raised by the assessee in objection no. 2 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the net profit at @20% of other unaccounted receipt of Rs.1,95,00,000/-worked out from the seized documents. 218. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee has been adjudicated along with assessee’s ground of appeal in IT(SS) No. 150/Ahd/2018 where we have decided the issue vide paragraphs nos. 192 of this order partly in favour of assessee. For detailed discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence the ground of objection raised by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 219. The next issue raised by the assessee in objection no. 3 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the net profit at @20% of the hawala transaction of Rs. 7,48,04,900/- based on seized documents. 220. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee has been adjudicated along with assessee’s ground of appeal in IT(SS) No. 150/Ahd/2018 where we have decided the issue vide paragraphs nos. 202 of this order partly in favour of assessee. For detailed discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence the ground of objection raised by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. IT(SS)A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 with C.O Nos.64 to 69/Ahd/10 and 4 others A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2015-16 128 221. The next issue raised by the assessee in objection 4 to 5 is that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 3,21,93,475/- on account of unsecured loan and interest thereon of Rs. 76,38,051/- only. 222. At the outset, with respect to the issue raised in the CO. by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore, no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such, the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 223. In the result, the CO raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 224. In the combined result: S. No. IT(SS)A/CO No. A.Year Appellant Result 1-14 IT(SS) A Nos.185 to 191/Ahd/2018 With C.O Nos.64 to 70/Ahd/19 (2009-10 to 2015-16) By Revenue and CO by assessee Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and CO’s Nos. 64-65, 67/AHD/2019 are also dismissed and Cos. 66, 68 to 70/AHD/2019 are party allowed. 15-18 ITA No. 147 to 150/Ahd/2018 2011-12 & 2013-14 to 2015-16 Assessee Partly allowed Order pronounced in the Court on 28/02/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 28/02/2023 Manish