ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Sarthav Infratech, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 509/AHD/2019

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals and cross-objections filed by the assessees and the Revenue against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad, arising from the assessment orders passed under sections 143(3) and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for various assessment years. The primary issues revolved around the validity of notices issued under section 153C, the applicability of section 68 concerning unexplained cash credits and unsecured loans, and the treatment of capital contributions by partners in partnership firms. The tribunal consolidated the appeals due to the identical issues involved and dismissed them based on the merits of each case, largely favoring the assessees.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135992 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2019
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries, CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd, DCIT vs. Rohini Builders, CIT vs. Shailesh Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, CIT vs. Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd, CIT vs. Ms. Lata Jain, CIT vs. Dharmendra Mahendrabhai Sutaria, CIT vs. Jay Infrastructure and Properties Pvt. Ltd, CIT vs. Dharmampal Premchand Ltd, CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, CIT vs. Adi Corporation, CIT vs. Sarthav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORTHEASSESSEEATTHETIMEOF; FORTHEASSESSEEATTIMEHEARINGBEFOREUSHAS; FORTHEASSESSEETHAT; FORTHEREVENUEFAIRLYADMITTEDTHEAPPLICABILITYOFTHE; FORTHEASSESSEEATTIMEHEARINGBEFOREUSHASSUBMITTEDTHATHEWAS; FORTHEASSESSEE.THEREISNODISPUTEWITHREGARDTOTHEFACTTHATTHEASSESSEEHAD; FORTHEASSESSEEISTHATHEHADWITHDRAWNTHEAMOUNT; FORTHEASSESSEEANDTHEREFORETHERETURNWASNOTFILEDONTIME.ONA; FORTHEAPPELLANT; SHRISUDHENDUDAS
• Assessee Lawyers: MSNUPURSHAH; RAISINGAQUESTIONTHATWHY; THEAOANDTHESAMEHASBEENCONFIRMED; VARIOUSHONBLEHIGHCOURTINCLUDINGTHEJURISDICTIONAL; HOLDINGTHATTHEASSESSEEFAILEDTOESTABLISHTHEIDENTITY; CREDITWORTHINESSOFTHECREDITORANDGENUINENESSOFTRANSACTION.THEAOALSO
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,अहमदाबादनायपीप INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRIT.RSENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER Sr.No.IT(SS)ANo. Asstt. Year NameofAppellantNameofRespondent 1. IT(SS)A No.293/Ahd/2018 2011-12 SarthavInvestment, 203-204,Abhishilp Complex, Nr.Vishweshwari MahadevTemple, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN:ABUFS1295A A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad 2-3. IT(SS)A No.317/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.125/Ahd/2019 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad SarthavInvestment, Ahmedabad. PAN:ABUFS1295A 4-5. IT(SS)A No.318/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.126/Ahd/2019 2015-16 D.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad SarthavInvestment, Ahmedabad. PAN:ABUFS1295A 6. IT(SS)A No.294/Ahd/2018 2015-16 SarthavInvestment, Ahmedabad. PAN:ABUFS1295A A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 7. IT(SS)A No.509/Ahd/20192012-13 A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad. M/s.Sarthav Infratech, 203-204,Abhishilp Complex, Nr.Vishweshwari MahadevTemple, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN:ABUFS3280P 8. IT(SS)A No.295/Ahd/2018 2013-14 M/s.SarthavInfratech, Ahmedabad. PAN:ABUFS3280P A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 2 9-10. IT(SS)A No.311/Ahd/2018 with C.O No.14/Ahd/2020 2013-14 D.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad. M/s.Sarthav Infratech, Ahmedabad. PAN:ABUFS3280P 11-12 IT(SS)A No.510/Ahd/2019 With C.O No.26/Ahd/2020 2014015 ACIT, Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad M/s.Sarthav Infratech, Ahmedabad. PAN:ABUFS3280P 13. IT(SS)A No.296/Ahd/2018 2009-10 Dharmendra MahendrabhaiSutaria, 16-B,JadavChambers, AshramRoad, Ahmedabad PAN:AFUPS6552A A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 14-15 IT(SSA No.327/Ahd/2018 withC.O No.148/Ahd/2019 2009-10 Dharmendta MahendrabhaiSutaria, Ahmedabad. PAN:AFUPS6552A D.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad. 16-17 IT(SS)A No.326/Ahd/2018 with C.O.131/Ahd/2019 2010-11 D.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad Dharmendta Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad. PAN:AFUPS6552A 18. IT(SS)A No.297/Ahd/2018 2011-12 Dharmendta MahendrabhaiSutaria, Ahmedabad. PAN:AFUPS6552A A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad 19-20 IT(SS)A No.328/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.149/Ahd/2019 2012-13 D.C.I.T, CentraCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad Dharmendta Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad. PAN:AFUPS6552A 21-22 IT(SS)A No.307/Ahd/2018 with C.O No.130/Ahd/2018 2014-15 D.CI.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad Dharmendta Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad. PAN:AFUPS6552A 23-24. IT(SS)A No.541/Ahd/2019 WithC.O No.25/Ahd/2022 2015-16 A.C.I.T, CentralCentral-1(2) Ahmedabd Dharmendta Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad. PAN:AFUPS6552A 25. IT(SS)A No.298/Ahd/2018 2011-12 Dharmendta MahendrabhaiSutaria, Ahmedabad. PAN:AFUPS6552A A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1, Ahmedabad. 26-27IT(SS)ANo.153-2010-11&D.C.I.T,SanjayMahendrabhai IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 3 154/Ahd/20192011-12CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad. Sutaria, 1B,MayurColony Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. PAN: AAQHS42364N 28-29 IT(SS)A No.172/Ahd/2019 With C.O No.166/Ahd/2019 2011-12 D.C.I.T, CentralCentral-1(2), Ahmedabad. SanjayMahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad. PAN: AAQHS42364N 30. IT(SS) No.277/Ahd/2018 2011-12 SthapatyaShilp Construction, 203-204,Abhishilp Complex, Nr.Vishweshwar MahadevTemple, Vastrapur-380015. PAN:ABFFS2922P A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 31-32 IT(SS)A No.313/Ahd/2018 with C.O No.121/Ahd/2019 2011-12 D.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad. SthapatyaShilp Construction, Ahmedabad. PAN:ABFFS2922P (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:MsNupurShah,A.R Revenueby:ShriSudhenduDas,C.I.T.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ DateofHearing:15/06/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/ DateofPronouncement:31/07/2023 आदेश/ORDER PERBENCH: TheaboveappealsandCo’shavebeenfiledbytheAssesseeandthe RevenueagainsttheordersoftheLd.CommissionerofIncome-Tax(Appeals), Ahmedabad,arisinginthematteroftheAssessmentOrderpassedu/s.143Cr.w.s 153(3)oftheActIncomeTaxAct1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct") relevanttotheAssessmentYearsasmentionedinthecausetitle.Sinceissues IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 4 involvedinalltheseappealsareidentical,weproceedtodisposeofalltheappeals bythiscommonorderforthesakeofconvenienceandbrevity. 2.ThebenchvideordersheetentryNo.23dated05/01/2023,sought clarificationfromtheLd.Counseloftheassesseebyraisingaquestionthatwhy thecaseofM/s.SarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd.,wasnotconsolidatedwiththe presentgroupof32appeals.TheLd.Counselinresponsetosuchqueryhasmade replyvideletterdatedNilwhichisreproducedasunder: Againsttheaforesaidobservationsomade,itissubmittedthatMr.SanjaySutariaandMr. DharmenSutariawerepartnersinvariouspartnershipfirmsofSarthavGroup.Thatthey partnersSanjaySutariaandDharmenSutariahasvoluntarilyofferedincomeatthetimeof filingreturnofincomeforthefundsintroducedascapitalcontributioninvarious partnershipfirms.Thatasthepartnershaddisclosedincomewhichwasinvestedinthe firm,thecasesofpartnerswererequestedtobeconsolidatedwithallpartnershipfirms. 2.1Afterhearingboththepartiesontheobjectionraisebythebenchaswell asonmeritofthecasetounderstandtheissue,wenotethattheprimaryissuein thepresent32appealswasrelatingtothecapitalcontributionbythepartnersof thefirmandtheloantakenfromvariousparties.Ontheotherhand,theissue involvedinthecaseofM/s.SarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd,waswithrespectto theonmoneyreceivedfromtheparties.Assuchinprincipal,itwasobservedthat theissuesinvolveinthepresent32appealsareindependentandunconnectedto theissuesraisedinM/sSarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd.EventheLd.DRatthe timeofhearingcouldnotmakeoutanycasethattheimpugnedgroupof32 appealsneedstobetaggedalongwithM/sSarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd.As such,theld.DRlefttheissueatthebench. 2.2Consideringthefactthat,thoughboththeassesseeasdiscussedabove belongtothesamegroup,theissuesinvolveintheirrespectiveappealscanbe disposedoffindependently.Therefore,wedecidetoproceedwiththematterafter hearingboththepartiesonmerits. IT(SS)A293/AHD/2018,appealbytheassessee,M/sSarthav InvestmentfortheA.Y.2011-12 IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 5 3.Theassesseehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.TheLd.CIT(A)haserredinlawandonfactsinconfirmingtheactionoftheLd.AO inissuingthenoticeu/s.153CoftheActdated28.09.2016inthecaseoftheappellantfirm asnosatisfactionisrecordedbytheAOofthepersonsearchedandaccordingly,the provisionsofsection153Carenotapplicableonfactsandcircumstancesofthecase. 2.Thatonthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecase,thenoticeu/s.153Cissued on28.09.2016isillegalasnoincriminatingmaterialbelongingtotheappellantfirmwas found/seizedduringthecourseofsearchconductedinthecaseofBarterGroupofcases on04.12.2014andconsequently,theassessmentmadeu/s.143(3)r.w.s153CoftheActis alsoillegalanddeservestobequashed. Theappellantreservesitsrighttoadd,amend,alterormodifyanyofthegroundsstated hereinaboveeitherbeforeoratthetimeofhearing. 4.TheassesseevidegroundNo.1ofitsappealhaschallengedthevalidityof noticeissuedundersection153CoftheActintheabsenceofvalidsatisfaction noteoftheAOofthesearchedassessee. 5.Attheoutset,wenotethatthelearnedARfortheassesseeatthetimeof hearingbeforeussubmittedthathehasbeeninstructedbytheassesseenotto presstheimpugnedgroundofappeal.Hence,theimpugnedgroundofappealof theassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. 6.Theassesseeinthenextgroundofappealchallengedthevalidityofthe noticeissuedundersection153CoftheActonthereasoningthatsearchmaterial foundwasnotbelongingtoit. 7.Attheoutset,wenotethatthelearnedARfortheassesseeatthetimeof hearingbeforeussubmittedthathehasbeeninstructedbytheassesseenotto presstheimpugnedgroundofappeal.Hencetheimpugnedgroundofappealof theassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. 8.Intheresult,theappealoftheassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 6 ComingtoIT(SS)ANo.317/AHD/2018,appealbytheRevenueinthe caseofassesseenamelyM/sSarthavInvestmentfortheassessment year2011-12 9.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.2,00,00,000/-onaccountofunexplained cashcreditu/s.68of1.T.Act. 2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.55,83,85,000/-(whichhasbeenwrongly mentionedintheassessmentorderasRs.57,47,94,168/-)onaccountofunsecuredloan u/s.68of1.T.Act. 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsinnotappreciatingtheprovisionsofSection153AoftheIT.Act,1961 whichrequiredthetotalincometobebroughtundertaxwithoutanyrestrictions. 4.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsinholdingthatsuchassessmentorre-assessmentu/s.153AoftheI.T. Act,1961istoberestrictedonlytotheincriminatingmaterialfoundduringthesearch. 5.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.1,079/-onaccountofdisallowanceofset- offoflossshowninthereturnofincome 6.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)oughtto haveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 7.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatoftheA.O. berestoredtotheaboveextent. 10.ThefirstissueraisedbytherevenueisthatthelearnedCIT-Aerredin deletingtheadditionofRs.2,00,00,000/-madeonaccountofcapitalcontribution byonepartnernamelyShriDharmendraSutaria. 11.Thefactsinbriefarethattheassesseeisapartnershipfirm,engagedin thebusinessofInvestinginunderwriting,shares,stock,debentures,landproperty etc.Therewassearchandseizureoperationundersection132oftheActdated 04 th December2014carriedoutatthe“BarterGroup”andconsequencetosuch search,proceedingsundersection153CoftheActwereinitiatedinthecaseof presentassessee.TheAOfoundthatduringtheyearunderconsideration,oneof IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 7 partnernamelyShriDharmenSutariaintroducedcapitalof₹2,00,00,000/-inthe firm.TheAOfoundthatShriDharmenSutariareceivedsuchfundfrom PadmavathiInfrastructure(aproprietaryconcernofShriAshishShah)as unsecuredloan.However,hefailedtoexplainthegenuinenessofcreditofsuch unsecuredloanandcreditworthinessoftheparty.TheAOfurthernoticedthat PadmavatiInfrastructurereceivedfundsfromM/sSarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd. AspertheAO,theunaccountedcashwasgeneratedbythegroupwhichhasbeen layeredintothedifferentbankaccountasevidentfromtheexcelsheet(CCCCC.xls) foundfromthepremisesofShriAnilHiralalShah.Thesameexcelsheetwasalso foundfromthepremisesofShriSanketVohraduringsearchproceeding.Thus,the AOinviewoftheabovetreatedtheamountcreditedintheformofcapital contributionbyimpugnedpartnerasunexplainedmoneyundersection68ofthe Actandaddedtothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 12.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT-Awho afterconsideringfactsintotalitydeletedtheadditionmadebytheAOby observingasunder: 5.2Thesubmissionoftheappellantandtheassessmentorderhasbeencarefully considered.TheAOintheassessmentorderinPara4oftheassessmentorderunderthe headUnexplainedcashcreditsfromPartnerhasmadeanobservationthatcapitalofRs.2 croreshasbeenintroducedbythePartnerShriDharmenSutariaduringAY2011-12and sourceofthefundsofDharmenSutariaarestatedtobeunsecuredloansfromPadmavati Infrastructure(Prop.AshishMahendrakumarShah)However,hiscreditworthinesshasnot beenproved.TheAOmadetheadditionofRs.2croresinthehandsoftheappellantas unexplainedcashcreditu/s.68oftheActTheappellantduringthecourseofappeal hearinginitssubmissionsubmittedthatthePartnerShriDharmenSutariahasreceivedthe loanfundsofRs.2croresfromPadmavatiInfrastructure(Prop.AshishMahendrakumar Shah)byaccountpayeechequeandthereafterhehasintroducedthesaidfundsasa capitalintheappellantfirm.Theappellantduringthecourseofassessmentproceedings placedonrecordoftheAOtheconfirmationofaccountfromthebooksofPadmavati Infrastructure(Prop.AshishMahendrakumarShah)alongwithPANNumber,Bank StatementofPadmavati&ITRofAshishShah(PropOfPadmavati)Theappellantfirmhas alsofurthersubmittedthattheAOhimselfhasstatedthedetailsofincomedisclosedby PadmavatiInfrastructure(Prop.AshishMahendrakumarShah)forAY.2008-09toAY2011- 12andforA.Y.2011-12,Mr.AshishMahendrakumarShah,ProprietorofM/s.Padmavati InfrastructurehasshowntheincomeofRs.23,95,650/-Therefore,theidentityoftheparty PadmavatiInfrastructure(Prop.AshishMahendrakumarShah),genuinenessofthefunds receivedbyShriDharmenSutariafromPadmavatiInfrastructureofRs.2croreswhichisby accountpayeechequeonlyandthecreditworthinessofthesaidpartyhasbeenduly establishedonthebasisofevidencesplacedbyappellantduringthecourseofassessment proceedingsbeforetheAO.Therefore,theadditionmadebytheAOinthehandsofthe IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 8 appellantfirmasunexplainedcashcreditu/s.68oftheActisnotjustifiedfollowingthe decisionofRohiniBuilders.)Duringthecourseofappealhearing,theARoftheappellant firmcontendedthatinrespectofcapitalcontributionbythepartnersintheappellantfirm, theAOcannottreatthesameasunexplainedcashcreditinthehandsoftheappellantfirm andevenifanyadverseinferencecanbedrawn,thesamecanbedrawninthehandsof thepartnerinviewofthedecisionoftheHon'bleGujaratH.Cdecisionincaseof CommissionerofIncomeTaxv.PankajDyestuffIndustries,IncomeTaxReferenceNo.241 of1993.Oncarefulconsiderationofthedetailssubmittedbytheappellantduringcourse ofassessmentproceedingsbeforetheAOinrespectofloanfundsgivenbyPadmavati Infrastructure(Prop.AshishMahendrakumarShah)byaccountpayeetoShnDharmen Sutaria,partneroftheappellantfirmwhointroducedthesaidfundsofRs.2croresas capitalcontributioninappellantfirmandtheAOintheassessmentorderhasalsostated aboutthedetailsofreturnofincomefiledbyPadmavatiInfrastructureAshish MahendrakumarShah)forA.Y.2008-09toA.Y2011-12andforAY2011-12,thesaidparty hasshowntheincomeofRs.23,95,650/-inthereturnofincomeforAY2011-12.Thus takingintoconsiderationallthefactsandmaterialevidenceavailableonrecordas discussedabove,theAOisnotjustifiedinmakingtheadditionofRs.2croreinthehands oftheappellantasunexplainedcashcreditu/s.68oftheActinrespectofcapital contributionmadebyShriDharmenSutaria,partneroftheappellantfirm,oncethesource ofcapitalfundsintroducedbypartnerhasbeenfullyexplainedbytheappellantbyplacing onrecordthenecessaryevidencesrequiredu/s68oftheAct(Therefore,Iherebydelete theadditionofRs.2CroresmadebytheAOasunexplainedcashcreditu/s.68oftheAct. Thisgroundofappealisallowed.Further,theappellant'scasehasbeenfoundcoveredby severaljudgmentsoftheHon'bleHighCourtofGujarat,Ahmedabadvidewhichithas beenheldthattransactionisthroughnormalbankingchannels,additionsu/s68cannotbe made.Theappellanthascitedseveralcaselawsinthesubmission,whichhasbeen reproducedinparasabove. 13.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT-A,theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 13.1ThelearnedDRbeforeusreiteratedthefindingscontainedinthe assessmentorderandfurthersubmittedthattheassesseefailedtodischargethe onuscastuponitundertheprovisionsofsection68oftheAct. 13.2Ontheotherhand,thelearnedARbeforeusfiledapaperbookrunning frompages1to234andcontendedthattherecannotbeanyadditioninthe handsofthepartnershipfirmonaccountofcapitalcontributionbythepartner. ThelearnedARvehementlysupportedtheorderofthelearnedCIT-A. 14.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,oneofthepartnersoftheassesseefirm introducedcapitalof₹2,00,00,000/-only.TheAOtreatedthesameas IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 9 unexplainedcashcreditinthehandoftheassesseebecause,thepartner,Shri DharmenSutariareceivedtheamountfromotherpartybeingPadmavati Infrastructureintheformofloanbutfailedtoexplainthecreditworthinessof PadmavatiInfrastructure.OnappealthelearnedCIT-Awaspleasedtodeletethe additionmadebytheAO. 14.1Theprovisionofsection68oftheActfastenstheliabilityontheassessee tomakeproperandreasonableexplanationregardingthenatureandsourcesof sumcreditedinthebookstothesatisfactionoftheAO.Theassesseeisliableto provideproofoftheidentityofthelenders/creditors,establishthegenuinenessof thetransactionsandcreditworthinessoftheparties.Inthecaseonhand,the amountcreditedwascapitalintroducedbythepartneroftheassesseefirm.The identityofthepartnerwhointroducedcapitalisnotindoubt.TheAOhimself foundthatpartneracquiredanunsecuredloanformakingcapitalcontribution.It issettledpositionoflawthattheassesseeisexpectedtoexplainthesourcesof creditonlynotthesourcesofsource.Therefore,inourconsideredopinionthe assesseecannotbeheldresponsibleifthepartnerwasnotabletoexplainthe sourceofcreditinhisbooksofaccounttothesatisfactionoftheAO. 14.2Bethatasmaybe,theHon’bleGujaratHighcourtinthecaseofCITv. PankajdyestuffIndustriesITReferenceNo.241(Guj.)of1993,dated6-7-2005 heldtheamountcreditedbythepartnerascapitalinthefirmcannotbetaxedin thehandsoftheassesseefirmundersection68oftheAct.Therelevant observationoftheHon’bleHighcourtreadsasunder: "13.Applyingtheaforesaidprinciplestothefactsofthepresentcase,itisapparentthat theassesseehadfurnishedthedetails,whichwoulddischargetheonuswhichlayonthe assessee.Itisnotthecaseoftherevenuethatthepartnersoftheassesseefirmare fictitious.TheIncomeTaxOfficerhasnotdisputedthatthecreditsintheaccountsofthe partnerswerenotdepositsfromthepartners.Moreover,itisanadmittedpositionthatthis wasthesecondyearofthefirm,andthatitwasrunninginloss.ItistruethattheIncome TaxOfficedidnotaccepttheexplanationgivenonbehalfoftheassesseeinrespectofthe newdepositsorcashcreditsintheaccountsofthepartners.Themerenon-acceptanceof thatexplanationdoesnot,however,providematerialforfindingthatthesaidsum representedincomeoftheassesseefirm.AsheldbytheAllahabadHighCourtincase ofJaiswalMotorFinance(supra),intheabsenceofanymaterialtoindicatethatthere wereprofitsofthefirm,theamountcreditedtothepartners'accountscouldnotbe IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 10 assessedinthehandsofthefirm.Oncethepartnershaveownedthatthemonies depositedintheiraccountsaretheirown,theIncomeTaxOfficerisentitledtoandmay proceedagainstthepartnersandassesseethesameintheirhands,iftheirexplanationis notfoundsatisfactory." 14.3Inviewoftheaboveandafterconsideringfactsintotality,wedonotfind anyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT-A.Hence,thegroundof appealoftherevenueisherebydismissed. 15.ThenextissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT-Aerredin deletingtheadditionmadebytheonaccountofunexplainedloancreditforRs. 57,47,94,168/-only. 16.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedingsfoundthatthebooksof accountsoftheassesseewerecreditedbyunsecuredloanforRs.57,47,94,168/- fromthefollowingparties: NameofentityPANLoan(Rs.) DeesaTie-UpPvt.Ltd.29.32,00,000 DharamnathShares&Service5,00,00,000 SarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd21,15,85,000 Total57,47,94,168 16.1OnquestionbytheAO,theassesseesubmittedtheabovepartieswere subjecttotheassessmentproceedingswiththesameAO.Therefore,allthe detailswerereadilyavailableonrecord.TheAOfoundthatthepartiesnamelyM/s DeesaTie-UpPvtLtdandM/sDharamnathShares&Servicesaremanagedand controlledbyShriAtulHiralalShahwhointroducedunaccountedincomeearned bymanipulationofStockmarketintheformofcapitalandloaninthebooksof thesetwoloanpartieswhichsubsequentlytransferredthefundtotheassessee firm.AccordingtotheAO,theimpugnedamountwastreatedasunexplainedcash creditundersection68oftheActintheirrespectivecases.Likewise,theloanfrom thepartynamelySarthavInfrastructurePvtLtdwhichisengagedinrealestate businessandtheunaccountedreceiptfromvariouspartiesarelayeredthrough variousaccountsintheformofunsecuredloan.Therefore,thegenuinenessof IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 11 loantransactionwasnotestablished.Thus,theAOtreatedthecreditofunsecured loanofRs.57,47,94,168/-fromtheabovepartiesasunexplainedcashcredit undersection68oftheAct. 17.AggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A).The learnedCIT(A)afterconsideringthefactsintotalitydeletedtheadditionmadeby theAOontechnicalcountaswellasonmerit.Therelevantfindingofthelearned CIT(A)readsasunder: Fromtheperusaloftheassessmentorder,itrevealsthefactthattheAOhasnotidentified anyoftheseizedmaterialand/orincriminatingmaterialfoundandseizedduringthe courseofsearchproceedingsinrespectofunsecuredloanreceivedduringtheyearunder considerationfromtheaforesaidthreeasstatedabove.Therefore,inabsenceofany incriminatingmaterialand/orseizedmaterialfoundduringthecourseofsearch proceedingsinrespectofunsecuredloanreceivedduringtheyearunderconsideration,the additionmadebytheAOonaccountunexplainedcreditsu/s68oftheActofRs. 57.47,94,168/-isnotjustified.Theappellant'scaseiscoveredbythedecisionofHon'ble GujaratHighCourtinthecaseofPr.CIT-4vsSaumyaConstructionPvt.Ltd[2017]387 ITR529(Gujarat)andotherjudicialpronouncementsrelieduponbytheappellantherein above.Asthefactsofthiscaseareidenticaltothefactsoftheabovementionedcaselaws, additionofRs.57.47,94,168/-(correctfigureRs.Rs.55,47,85,400/-)madebytheAOis requiredtobedeleted 6.2.1Onmerit,onperusalofthedetailsofunsecuredloanparties,itisnoticedthatthe AOhasmadetheadditiononaccountofunsecuredloanreceivedduringtheyearfrom SarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd(SIPL)foranamountofRs.21,15,85,000/-DeeshaTieUp Pvt.LtdforanamountofRs.29,32,00,000/-andDharmanathShare&ServicePvt.Ltdfor anamountofRs5,00,00,000/-Alltheaforesaidthreeloanpartiesidentityaregetting establishedastheAOoftheappellantisalsoAOoftheaforesaidthreecompaniesand DeeshaTieUpPvt.LtdandDharmanathShare&ServicePvt.Ltdarethegroupcompanies ofAnilHiralalShahandAtulHiralalShahandalltheaforesaidthreecompanieswereunder theassessmentproceedingsu/s153A/153CoftheActbeforetheAOandtherefore,the returnofincomeofalltheaforesaidthreecompaniesaswellasbankstatementsand booksofaccountswerealreadyavailableontherecordoftheAOTheappellanthas alreadyplacedfromitsbooksofaccountsledgeraccountsofaforesaidthreecompanies alongwithstatementshighlightingthetransactionsinsupportofthecontentionthatthe unsecuredloanreceivedfromSarthavInfrastructurePvtLtd.,DeesaTieUpPvtLtdand DharmanathShares&ServicePvt.Ltdwerebyaccountpayeecheugesthroughaproper bankingchannel. 6.2.2Theappellanthasalsotakenacontentionthataspertheinformationavailablewith itfromthedirectorsofSarthavInfrastructurePvt.LtdtheAOhaspreparedacharton page99oftheassessmentorderbystatingthenameoflenderparties,PANNoandreturn ofincomeforA.Y.2009-10,2010-11,2012-13,2013-14and2014-15showingsubstantial income.AsthecompanyDeesaTieUpPvt.LtdisalsobeingassessedbytheAOofthe appellantandtherefore,allnecessarydetailsasregardstothereturnofincome,audited balancesheetofthecompany,booksofaccountsandbankstatementswereavailableon therecordoftheAOinrespectofDeesaTieUpPvt.Ltdasthesearchproceedingswere alsocarriedoutinthecaseofDeesaTieUpPvt.Ltdanditwassubjectto153A/153C proceedings.TheappellanthasalsoplacedonrecordtheauditedbalancesheetofDeesa IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 12 TieUpPvt.Ltdandfromverificationoftheauditedbalancesheet,itisnoticedthatthe saidcompanyishavinghugefundsbywayofsharecapitalandreservesandsurplustothe tuneofRs.17,48,75,500/-.Alltheaforesaidfactsandevidenceavailableontherecordof theAOestablishtheidentityofthedepositorDeesaTieUpPvtLtdandgenuinenessand creditworthinesstolendtheunsecuredloanamountofRs.29,32,00,000/-totheappellant. Therefore,theadditionmadebytheAOfortheunsecuredloanamountofRs. 29,32,00,000/-receivedfromDeesaTieUpPvt.Ltdduringtheyearunderconsiderationis notjustifiedandisherebydeleted. 6.2.3.InrespectofunsecuredloanpartyDharmanathShare&ServicePvt.Ltdthe appellanthascontendedthatthesaidcompanywasassessedtotaxwiththeAOhimself andtherefore,theobservationmadebytheAOintheassessmentorderisunjustifiedand badinlawasregardstotheidentityandcreditworthinessofthelenderpartyDharmanath Share&ServicePvtLtd.Further,theappellantfirmsubmittedthecontraconfirmationof thesaidpartyalongwithbankstatementofthelenderpartyasperPageNo.28to32of Exhibit-VIIofitswrittensubmission.Theappellanthasalsodownloadedthemasterdata ofthecompanyDharmanathShare&ServicePvt.LtdfromMCAwebsiteandcopyofthe samehasbeensubmittedasperExhibit-VIII,PageNo33alongwithitswritten submissionandfromperusalofthesaidmasterdata,thecompanyisactiveandregularly filesFormNo.32withROC.Theappellanthasalsotakenalegalcontentionthatasperthe versionoftheAOintheassessmentorder,inrespectofsharecapitalreceivedinthecase ofDharmanathShares&ServicePvt.Ltd,whichremainsunexplained,theadditioncanbe madeinthecaseofDharmanathShares&ServicePvt.Ltdu/s.68oftheActinviewof followingjudgments:-CITvs.N.TarikaPropertiesInvestmentPvt.Ltd.(2013)40 taxmann.com525(Delhi) b.CITvs.NovaPromotersandFinleasePvt.Ltd.(2012)342ITR169(Del.)18 taxmann.com217andCITv.NRPortfolioPvt.Ltd.(ITAppealNos.1018and1019of2011 dated22.11.2013).IntheabovereferredjudgmenttheHon'bleDelhiHighCourthas consideredthejudgmentofHon'bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofCITvs.LovelyExports Ltd.,(2008)216CTR195(SC)andoverruledthesaidJudgmentinfavourofrevenue.An SLPwasfiledagainstthedecisionofHon'bleDelhiHighCourtinthecaseofCITvs.N. TarikaPropertiesPvt.Ltd.(2013)40taxmann.com525(Delhi)beforetheHon'ble SupremeCourtandtheHon'bleSupremeCourtdismissedtheSLPfiledbyN.R.Tarika PropertiesPvt.Ltd.onmerits. c.CITvs.NavodayaCastlesPvt.Ltd.367ITR306(Del.) d.DCITvs.RohiniBuilders256ITR360(Guj.) IhaveverifiedtheledgeraccountoftheunsecuredloanpartyDharmanathShare& ServicePvt.Ltdandtheircontraconfirmationandbankstatementanditnoticedthatthe appellanthasreceivedtheunsecuredloanduringtheyearunderconsiderationbyaccount payeechequeintheregularbankaccountoftheappellantAlltheaforesaidfactsand evidenceavailableontherecordoftheAOestablishtheIdentityofthedepositor DharmanathShare&ServicePvt.Ltdandgenuinenessandcreditworthinesstolendthe unsecuredloanamountofRs.5,00,00,000/-totheappellantcompany.Therefore,the additionmadebytheAOfortheunsecuredloanamountofRs.5,00,00,000/-received fromDharmanathShare&ServicePvt.Ltdduringtheyearunderconsiderationandis herebydeleted 6.2.4.InrespectofunsecuredloanofRs.21,15,85,000/-fromSarthavInfrastructurePvt Ltd.,thehasobservedonPage5oftheassessmentorderthat"SarthavInfrastructurePvt. Ltd.,isalsoinvolvedintherealestate/infrastructureprojectsandcashreceiptofthe sameprojectaredepositedinvariousaccountsandthenroutedtothecompanyas IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 13 unsecuredloan.Hencegenuinenessofthetransactionswiththecompanyisnotproved" TheappellantsubmittedthatsinceSIPLfallsunderthejurisdictionoftheAOhimself,a copyofincometaxreturnandbankstatementwouldalreadybeavailablewiththeAOin ordertoverifythecreditworthinessandthegenuinenessofthesaidtransaction.The appellanthasalsosubmittedthecopyofthecontraconfirmationoftheunsecuredloan receivedfromthelendercompan,theacknowledgmentofreturnfiledforAY2011-12of SIPL,bankstatementofSIPLalongwithbankstatementoftheappellantfirmhighlighting thetransactionswhichhasbeencompiledatPageNo.34to72ofPaperBook.Further, SIPLisaregularfilerofincometaxreturnsinceitsincorporationinFY2007-08TheLender companySIPLhadfiledreturnforAY2011-12showingsubstantialincomeofRs 6,69,59,730/-andhencetheappellantfirmhasdulydisposeditsonusofprovidingthe identity,creditworthinessandgenuinenessofthelendercompanyTheappellanthasalso filedthecopyofauditedbalancesheetofSIPLaswellwascompany'sMasterData downloadedfromtheROCWebsiteandfromverificationofthesame,itisevidentthatthe companySIPLishavinghugefundsbywayofsharecapitalreserveandsurplus aggregatingtoRs4,10,66,896Consideringtheaforesaidfactsandmaterialavailableon record,theadditionmadebytheAOinrespectofunsecuredloanamountingto Rs.21.15,85,000fromSarthavInfrastructurePvtLtd(SIPL)isnotjustifiedandthesameis deleted.Keepinginviewthediscussionabove,theadditionmadebytheAOonaccountof unexplainedcashcreditsu/s:68oftheActforanaggregateamountofRs.57.47,94,168/- isnotfoundjustifiedandhencethesameisdeleted.Thisgroundofappealisallowed. Moreovertheappellant'scaseisfoundcoveredbythejudgmentofHon'bleHighCourtof Gujarat,AhmedabadinthecaseofRohiniBuilders,RanchodJivabhaiNakhavaRidhiSidhi Corporationetcvidewhichithasbeenheldthatadditionsu/s68oftheActarenot sustainable,iftransactionsaremadethroughnormalbankingchannel. 18.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 18.1ThelearnedDRbeforeussubmittedthattheassesseefailedtodischarge theonusimposedundersection68oftheAct.ThelearnedDRreiteratedthe findingscontainedintheassessmentorder. 18.2Ontheotherhand,thelearnedARbeforeuscontendedthatallthe necessarydetailsoftheloanpartieswerealreadyavailablewiththeAO.Besides, therewastherepaymentofloanintheyearunderconsiderationwhichwasduly acceptedbytherevenue.Accordingly,thelearnedARcontendedthattherecannot beanyadditiontothetotalincomeoftheassessee.ThelearnedARvehemently supportedtheorderofthelearnedCIT-A. 19.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Theprovisionofsection68oftheActfastensthe IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 14 liabilityontheassesseetomakeproperandreasonableexplanationregardingthe natureandsourcesofsumcreditedinthebookstothesatisfactionoftheAO.The assesseeisliabletoprovideproofoftheidentityofthelenders/creditors,establish thegenuinenessofthetransactionsandcreditworthinessoftheparties.Inthe caseonhand,thebooksofaccountsoftheassesseewerecreditedbyunsecured amountofloanfromthreepartiesasmentionedinpreviousparagraphs. Admittedly,allthesethreepartiesweresubjecttotheproceedingeitherunder section153Aor153CoftheActbeforethesameAOwhohasjurisdictionoverthe assessee.Thus,theidentityoftheloanpartiescannotbedoubted. 19.1Comingtothenextaspectthatiscreditworthinessoftheparties,inthis regardwenotethattheAOhimselffoundthatfirst2parties(DeesaTie-UpPvt LtdandDharamnathShares&Services)receivedhugesumintheformofloansor capitalwhereasthirdpartynamelyM/sSarthavInfrastructurePvtLtdwas engagedinthebusinessofrealestatedevelopment.Theywerealsofilingregular returnofincomeanddeclaredhandsomeamountofincome.Thus,thesethree loanpartieswerehavingcreditworthinesstoadvanceloan. 19.2Likewise,thetransactionwascarriedoutthroughthebankingchannel whichwasdulyrecordedinthebooksofaccountoftheassesseeandcounter parties.ThereisnofindingoftheAOormaterialonrecordsuggestingthatthe assesseeandcounterpartyexchangedcash.Assuch,theonlyreasonoftheAO forholdingthecreditofloanasnotgenuinewasthatthefirsttwopartieswere controlledbytheoneShriAtulHiralalShahwhogeneratedunaccountedincome andintroducedhisunaccountedintheirbooksintheformofloanorcapital.A similarreasonwasalsogivenbytheAOfortheparty,namelyM/sSarthav InfrastructurePvt.Ltd.Inourconsideredopinionthecreditinbooksofassessee cannotbeheldunexplainedmerelyforthereasonthereisdoubtregardingthe genuinenessofsourceofcreditinbooksofcreditorparty.Assuch,itisthesettled positionoflawthatincaseofcreditofloan,theassesseeisonlyexpectedto explainthesourcesofcreditinitsbooksonlyandnotthesourcesofsource.Ifthe IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 15 Revenuehasanydoubtregardinggenuinenessoffundinthehandsofthecreditor, thentheRevenuecantakeappropriateactioninthecaseofthecreditorpartybut notthepresentassessee.Itispertinenttomention,theAOhimselfnotedthat therewasanadditionundersection68oftheActinthehandofthecreditorparty namelyDeesaTie-UpPvtLtdandDharamnathShares&Servicesonaccount creditofloansandcapital.Thus,nofurtheradditioncanbemadeinthehandsof theassesseecompany. 19.3Withoutprejudicetotheabove,wenotethattheyearunderconsideration isanunabated/completedassessmentyearandpresentassessmentproceeding undersection153Cr.w.s.143(3)oftheActwasinitiatedinconsequencetosearch proceeding.IthasbeensettledbyvariousHon’bleCourtincludingHon’ble JurisdictionalHighCourtthatthecompletedassessmentcannotbedisturbedin theabsenceofanyincriminatingmaterial/documentswhereastheassessment/ reassessmentcanbedisturbedwithrespecttoabatedassessmentyears.The word'assess'inSection153A/153CoftheActisrelatabletoabatedproceedings (i.e.thosependingonthedateofsearch)andtheword'reassess'tothe completedassessmentproceedings.TheHon’bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseof SaumyaConstructionPvt.Ltd.reportedin81taxmann.com292,hasheldthat therecannotbeanyadditionofregularitemsshowninthebooksofaccountsuntil andunlesstherewerecertainmaterialsofincriminatingnaturefoundduringthe search.ThewordincriminatinghasnotbeendefinedundertheAct,butitrefersto materials/documents/informationwhichwerecollectedduringthesearch proceedingsandnotproducedintheoriginalassessmentproceeding. Simultaneously,thesedocumentshadbearingonthetotalincomeoftheassessee. 19.4Nowcomingtothefactsofthecaseinhand,wenotethatadditionwas madefortheloanamountcreditedinthebooksoftheassessee.However,no materialofincriminatingnaturewasfoundduringsearchproceedingsregarding creditofsuchloan.TheAOalsodidnotrefertoanyincriminatingmaterialfound inthisregardwhichwouldhavemadebasisfortheadditionintheassessment. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 16 Theassesseeduringtheappellateproceedingmadespecificcontentioninthis regardandthelearnedCIT(A)concurredwiththesubmissionoftheassesseethat nomaterialinconnectionwithloantransactionwasfound. 19.5Atthetimeofhearing,thelearnedDRhasnotbroughtanythingonrecord referringtoincriminatingmaterialinconnectionwithloantransaction.Accordingly, weholdthattherecannotbeanyadditionoftheregularitemswhichwere disclosedbytheassesseeintheregularbooksofaccounts.Inholdingso,wedraw supportandguidancefromthejudgmentofHon’bleGujaratHighCourtincaseof SaumyaConstruction(P.)Ltd(supra)whereinitwasheldasunder: Thus,whileinviewofthemandateofsub-section(1)ofsection153Aineverycasewhere thereisasearchorrequisition,theAssessingOfficerisobligedtoissuenoticetosuch persontofurnishreturnsofincomeforthesixyearsprecedingtheassessmentyear relevanttothepreviousyearinwhichthesearchisconductedorrequisitionismade,any additionordisallowancecanbemadeonlyonthebasisofmaterialcollectedduringthe searchorrequisition.Incasenoincriminatingmaterialisfound,theearlierassessment wouldhavetobereiterated. 19.6Inviewoftheabove,weholdthattherecannotbeanyadditiontothetotal incomeoftheassesseeoftheregularitemsasmadebytheAOinthepresent case.Accordingly,wedonotfindanyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthe learnedCIT(A)ontechnicalcountaswellasonmeritanddirecttheAOtodelete theadditionmadehim.Thus,thegroundofappealoftherevenueishereby dismissed. 20.ThenextissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT-Aerredin deletingthedisallowanceoflosstobecarriedforwardofRs.1079/-only. 21.Thenecessaryfactsarethattheassesseefortheyearunderconsideration filedreturnofincomedeclaringlossofRs.1079/-only.However,theAOinthe assessmentframedundersection143(3)r.w.s.153CoftheActdisallowedtheloss inpursuancetotheprovisionofsection80oftheActasthereturnwasfiled belatedly. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 17 22.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A)and submittedthatithasnotcarryforwardedtheloss,thereforetheprovisionof section80oftheActcannotbeinvoked.ThelearnedCIT-Aconcurredwiththe submissionoftheassesseeanddeletedthedisallowancesoflossbyobservingas under: 7.2.Submissionoftheappellate,thefactsmentionedintheassessmentorderhave beenconsideredcarefully.TheAOhasobservedthatintermsofsection80ofI.T.Act, 1961sincethereturnhasbeenfiledbelatedly,nolossisallowedtobecarriedforward. Further,inviewofHon'bleGujaratHighCourtdecisioninFakirMohamadHaziHasan247 ITR290,thelossreturnedbyassesseeofRs.1079/-isalsonotallowedtobeset-off againstadditionmadeu/s.68oftheI.T.Act,1961.Theappellanthasalreadycontended thatithasnotcarriedforwardthelossofRs.1,079/-whilefilingthereturnu/s.153Cof theAct.ThustheadditionmadebytheAOofRs.1,079/-isnotjustifiedandthesameis herebydeleted. 23.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 23.1ThelearnedDRbeforeusvehementlysupportedtheorderoftheAO. 23.2Onthecontrary,thelearnedARbeforeuscontendedthattheassesseehas notcarriedforwardanylossasallegedbytheAO.ThelearnedARvehemently supportedtheorderofthelearnedCIT-A. 24.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialavailableonrecord.Theprovisionofsection80oftheActhasdirect bearingonissueonhandwhichreadsasunder: 80.NotwithstandinganythingcontainedinthisChapter,nolosswhichhasnotbeen determinedinpursuanceofareturnfiledinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsub-section (3)ofsection139,shallbecarriedforwardandsetoffundersub-section(1)ofsection 72orsub-section(2)ofsection73orsub-section(2)ofsection73Aorsub-section(1)or sub-section(3)ofsection74orsub-section(3)ofsection74A.. 24.1Ontheperusaloftheaboveprovision,wenotethatitrestrictstheset-off andcarryforwardofbusinesslossesifreturnisnotfiledaspertheprovisionof section139subsection3oftheAct.However,inthecaseonhand,wenotethat theassesseebeforethelearnedCIT-Aclaimedthatithasnotmadeanyclaimof carryforwardoflosses,thereforetheprovisionofsection80oftheActcannotbe IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 18 applied.ThesubmissionoftheassesseehasbeenfoundtruebythelearnedCIT-A. ThelearnedDRatthetimeofhearingbeforeushasnotbroughtanymaterial contrarytothefindingoflearnedCIT-A.Therefore,wedonotfindanyreasonto interfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT-A.Hence,thegroundofappealofthe Revenueisherebydismissed. 25.Intheresult,theappealoftherevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoCONo.125/Ahd/2019inIT(SS)No317/Ahd/2018bythe assessee,SarthavInvestmentforA.Y.2011-12. 26.Attheoutset,wenotethattheassesseeintheCOfiledbyithassupported theorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparateadjudicationis requiredfortheCOfiledbytheassessee.Hence,wedismissthesameas Infructuous. 26.1Intheresult,theCOfiledbytheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)ANo.294/AHD/2018,bytheassessee,Sarthav InvestmentfortheAY2015-16 27.TheonlyissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT-Aerredin confirmingtheorderoftheAObysustainingthedisallowanceofcarryforwardof lossesof₹92,91,731/-only. 28.Attheoutset,wenotethatthelearnedARfortheassesseeatthetimeof hearingbeforeussubmittedthathehasbeeninstructedbytheassesseenotto presstheimpugnedgroundofappeal.Hencetheimpugnedgroundofappealof theassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. 29.Intheresult,theappealoftheassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 19 ComingtoIT(SS)ANo.318/AHD/2018,anappealbytherevenueincase ofassessee,SarthavInvestmentfortheassessmentyear2015-16 30.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionmadebytheAOinrespectofunexplainedcash creditu/s.68oftheActofRs.21,41,48,294/-fromDeeshaTieUpPvt.Ltd., Rs.5,00,00,000/-fromDharmanathShare&ServicePct.Ltd.,Rs.25,00,28,706/-from SarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd.(SIPL),Rs.6,76,84,468/-fromVaibhaviCapital ManagementandRs.1,30,00,000/-fromMainakComtradePvt.Ltd. 2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.21,41,48,294/-inrespectofSarthav InfrastructurePvt.Ltd.(SIPL)onthegroundthatthesamecashwasaddedbytheAOin A.Y.2011-12withouttheassesseeleadingevidencebeforetheAO(referpara5of AssessmentOrder)thatthisamountwasthesamethathasbeenreceivedbytheassessee fromSIPLinthepreviousyearrelevanttoA.Y.2011-12andwasaddedintheassessment orderforA.Y.2011-12. 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsinnotappreciatingtheprovisionsofSection153AoftheIT.Act,1961 whichrequiredthetotalincometobebroughtundertaxwithoutanyrestrictions. 4.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsinholdingthatsuchassessmentorre-assessmentu/s.153AoftheI.T. Act,1961istoberestrictedonlytotheincriminatingmaterialfoundduringthesearch.Not Relent 5.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsinnotappreciatingthattheassesseedidnotdischargeitsonusbefore thetoestablishthenatureandsourceofcreditorsamountingtoRs.59,48,61,468/-inits books. 6.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)oughtto haveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 7.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatoftheA.O. berestoredtotheaboveextent. 31.TheonlyeffectiveissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A) erredindeletingtheadditionmadebytheAOonaccountofunexplainedcreditof loanforRs.59,48,61,468/-undersection68oftheAct. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 20 32.TheassesseeduringtheyearhasreceivedunsecuredloansofRs. 59,48,61,468/-fromthefollowingparties: NameofentityPANLoan(Rs.) DeesaTie-UPPvt.Ltd.21,41,48,294/- DharamnathShares&Service5,00,00,000 SartyhavInfrastructurePLtd25,00,28,706 MainakComtradePvtLtd1,30,00,000 VaisbhaviCapitalManagement6,76,84,468 Total59,48,61,468 32.1TheAOtreatedthesameasunexplainedcashcreditundersection68of theActandaddedtothetotalincomeoftheassessee.However,theAO inadvertentlyhasmadethefinaladditionforRs.57,47,94,168.00leavinga differenceofRs.2,00,67,300.00only. 33.OnappealbytheassesseethelearnedCIT(A)deletedtheadditionmadeby theAOontechnicalgroundi.e.noadditionintheabsenceofincriminating materialfoundinthesearchaswellonmeritofissue. 34.Beingaggrievedbytheorderoftheld.CIT-A,therevenueisintheappeal beforeus. 34.1BoththelearnedDRandthelearnedARbeforeussupportedthefindingof theauthoritiesbelowtotheextentfavorabletothem. 35.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Attheoutset,wenotethatsimilaradditionhasbeen madebytheAOinAY2011-12againsttheunsecuredloanreceivedbythe assesseefromthepartynamelyDeesaTie-upPvtLtd,M/sDharmnathSharesand ServicesandM/sSarthavInfrastructurePvtLtd.Theadditioninearlieryearshas beenmadeonidenticalreasoningwhichcametobedeletedbythelearnedCIT(A). Subsequently,wealsodeletedtheadditionmadebytheAOonappealpreferred bytheRevenuebearingIT(SS)ANo.317/AHD/2018.TherelevantfindingforAY 2011-12hasbeengiveninparagraphsno.19ofthisorder.Therefore,considering IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 21 allthefactsandmaterialsavailableonrecord,weholdthatthelearnedCIT(A) rightlydeletedtheadditionmadeonaccountofunsecuredloanfromtheparties namelyM/sDeesaTie-upPvtLtd,M/sDharmnathSharesandServicesandM/s SarthavInfrastructurePvtLtd. 35.1ComingtotheissueofadditionofRs.1,30,00,000/-onaccountoftheloan receivedfromthepartynamelyM/sMainakComtradePvtLtd.,attheoutset,we notethattheassesseebeforethelearnedCIT-Aclaimedthatnofreshloanform theimpugnedpartywasreceivedduringtheyearunderconsideration.Assuch, theimpugnedamountwasrepresentingtheopeningbalance.Theclaimofthe assesseehasbeenfoundtruebythelearnedCIT(A).ThelearnedDRbeforeus didnotbringanymaterialcontrarytothefindingofthelearnedCIT(A).Thus, becausenofreshloanwasreceivedbytheassesseefromtheimpugnedparty, namelyMainakComtradePvtLtd,weholdthattheprovisionofsection68ofthe Actcannotbeinvokedfortheamountreceivedinearlieryear.Hence,thelearned CIT(A)rightlydeletedtheadditionmadebytheAO. 35.2MovingtotheissueofunsecuredloanofRs.6,76,84,468/-fromVaibhavi CapitalManagement,inthisregard,wenotethatthelearnedCIT(A)hasgivena findingthattheimpugnedpartyregularlyfilingreturnofincomesinceAYs2009- 10to2015-16andhavedeclaredsubstantialincomewhichhasalsobeennotedby theAOofthepresentassesseewhilefinalizingtheassessmentofgroupconcern. ThelearnedCIT(A)alsofoundthatthefreshloanofRs.3,15,31,557/-wasonly creditedduringtheyearwhereastheAOwronglyallegedtheamountofloanofRs. 6,76,94,468/-.Assuch,therewasanopeningoutstandingbalanceofRs. 4,68,60,471/-outofwhichanamountofRs.1,25,07,560/-wasrepaidduringthe yearandfreshamountofRs.3,15,31,557/-wasreceivedduringtheyear.The learnedCIT(A)furtherfoundthattheassesseeandM/sVaibhaviCapital Managementcontinuouslyenteredintotransactionofadvance(receivedand repaid)fromFY2013-14to2015-16whichwasfinallysettledinFY2015-16i.e.in theimmediatesubsequentyear.Allthesetransactionsofreceiptandpaymentof IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 22 loanandadvanceswerecarriedoutthroughbankingchannel.Atthetimeof hearing,thelearnedDRbeforeusdidnotbringanymaterialcontrarytothe findingofthelearnedCIT(A).Thus,consideringthefactsthatloanamountwas receivedthroughbankingchannelandsubsequentlyrepaidthroughbanking channel,weholdthatsuchcreditofloaninthegivenfactsandcircumstances cannotbetreatedasunexplainedcashcreditinthelightofjudgmentofHon’ble jurisdictionalHighCourtinthecaseCITVs.Rohinibuildersreportedin256ITR 360whereinitwasheldasunder: “Thegenuinenessofthetransactionisprovedbythefactthatthepaymenttothe assesseeaswellasrepaymentoftheloanbytheassesseetothedepositorsismadeby accountpayeechequesandtheinterestisalsopaidbytheassesseetothecreditorsby accountpayeecheques.” 35.3Thus,inviewoftheaboveelaborateddiscussion,wedonotfindany infirmityintheorderofthelearnedCIT(A).Therefore,weupholdthesameand directtheAOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhimundersection68oftheAct. Hence,thegroundofappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissedonmerit. 35.4Withoutprejudicetotheabove,wenotethattheyearunderconsideration isunabated/completedassessmentyearandpresentassessmentproceeding undersection153Cr.w.s.143(3)oftheActinitiatedinconsequencetosearch proceeding.Inourconsideredopinionthecompletedassessmentcannotbe disturbedintheabsenceofanyincriminatingmaterial/documents.Inthisregard therehasbeenanelaboratefindinggivenbyusvideparagraphno.19.3to19.6 ofthisorder.Fordetaileddiscussiononthisissue,refertotheabove-mentioned paragraphofthisorder.Thus,ontechnicalgroundalsotheissueraisedbythe Revenueisherebydismissed. 36.Intheresult,theappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoCONo.126/Ahd/2019inIT(SS)No.318/Ahd/2018bythe assessee,SarthavInvestmentfortheAY2015-16. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 23 37.Attheoutset,wenotethattheassesseeintheCOfiledbyithassupported theorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparateadjudicationis requiredfortheCOfiledbytheassessee.Hence,wedismissthesameas Infructuous. 37.1Intheresult,theCOfiledbytheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)ANo.509/Ahd/2019,anappealbytheRevenueincase oftheassessee,SarthavInfratechforAY2012-13. 38.TheRevenuehasraisedthefollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theld.CIT(A)haserredin holdingthatanyadditionduringtheassessmentu/s153Chastobeconfinedtothe incriminatingmaterialfoundduringthecourseofsearchu/s.132(1)oftheAct,even though,thereisnosuchstipulationinsec.153CoftheAct. 2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theld.CIT(A)haserredin notappreciatingthatsec.153Crequiresanoticetobeissuedrequiringtheassesseeto furnishhisreturnofincomeinrespectofeachassessmentyearfallingwithinsix assessmentyearsandtoassessorre-assessthetotalincomeofthosesixassessment years,andthattheschemeofassessmentorre-assessmentofthetotalincomeofa personsearchedwillbebroughttonaughtifnoadditionisallowedtobemadeforthose sixassessmentyearsintheabsenceofanyseizedincriminatingmaterial 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theId.CIT(A)haserredin notappreciatingthatwhilecomputationofundisclosedincomeoftheblockperiod u/s.158BBwastobemadeonthebasisofevidencefoundasaresultofsearchor requisitionofbooksofaccounts,thereisnosuchstipulationinsec.153Aandsec.153BI specificallystatesthattheprovisionsofChapter-XIV-B,underwhichsec158BBfalls,would notbeappliedwhereasearchwasinitiatedu/s132after31/5/2003. 4.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theId.CIT(A)haserredin notappreciatingthatassessmentinrelationtocertainissuesnotrelatedtothesearchand seizuremayariseinanyofthesaidsixassessmentyearsafterthesearchu/s.132is conductedinthecaseoftheassessee,andthatiftheinterpretationoftheId.CIT(A)were toholditwillnotbepossibletoassesssuchincomeinthe153Cproceedings,whileno otherparallelproceedingstoassesssuchotherincomecanbeinitiated,leadingtono possibilityofassessingsuchotherincome,whichcouldnothavebeentheintentionofthe legislature. 5.Onthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserredin deletingadditionofRs6,00,000/-beingprotectiveadditioninthecaseofassessee. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 24 6.Onthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserredin deletingadditionofRs.5,00,000/-beingcashdepositinbankaccountswhichremained unexplainedduringthecourseofassessmentproceedings. 7.Onthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserredin deletingadditionofRs.4,26,12,849/-beingunexplainedcreditintheformofunsecured loanu/s68oftheAct. 8.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)oughthave upheldtheorderoftheA.O. 9.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatofA.O.be restoredtotheaboveextent. 39.Additionalgroundofappealwasalsofiledbytheassesseechallenging validityofproceedingu/s153CoftheActbuttherewasnoappeal/COfiledbythe assessee.Therefore,inabsenceofappealorcrossappealbytheassesseeand moreoverbecausethelearnedARfortheassesseeattimehearingbeforeushas submittedthathewasinstructedbytheassesseenottopresstheissueraisedin additionalgroundofappeal.Hence,weherebyrejectthesameasinfructuous. 40.ThefirsteffectiveissueraisedbytheRevenuevidegroundNos.1to4&7 ofitsappealisthatthelearnedCIT-AerredindeletingtheadditionofRs. 4,26,12,849/-beingunexplainedcreditofloanbyholdingthatnoadditioncanbe madeintheabsenceofincriminatingmaterialintheproceedingsundersection 153CoftheAct. 41.Thefactsinbriefarethattheassessee,apartnershipfirm,isengagedin thebusinessofConstructionanddevelopment.Theassesseeinthereturnof incomefiledundersection139oftheActdeclaredincomeatRs.NIL. Subsequentlyasearchandseizureoperationundersection132oftheActdated 04 th December2014wascarriedoutatthe“BarterGroup”andconsequenceto suchsearch,proceedingsundersection153CoftheActwereinitiatedinthecase ofpresentassessee.Finally,theassessmentundersection143(3)r.w.s.153Cof theActwasframedbytheAOaftermakingadditionofRs.4,26,12,849/-under section68oftheAct,onaccountofcreditofunsecuredloanbesidemakingother additiontothetotalincomeoftheassessee. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 25 42.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A).The learnedCIT(A)whileadjudicatingtheissueofadditionofunsecuredloanofRs. 4,26,12,849/-deletedtheadditionmadebytheAOontechnicalcounti.e.inthe proceedingundersection153CoftheAct,theadditioncanbemadeonlytothe extentofincriminatingmaterial.ThelearnedCIT(A)alsodeletedtheimpugned additiononmerit.TherelevantfindingofthelearnedCIT(A)isextractedasunder: 8.1Theappellant'sargumentsareintwofold.Firstly,onthebasisoflegalcontentionthat duringthecourseofsearchproceedings,noincriminatingmaterialasregardstoloan receivedduringtheyearfromtheaforesaidpartieswerefoundandseizedfromthe residenceofShriAnilHiralalShahaswellasfromtheresidenceofShriSanketJitendrabhai Shah(Vora)ofBarterGroupforwhichtheaggregateadditionofRs.4,26,12,849/-has beenmadebytheAOu/s.68oftheActandtheappellantfurthercontendedthatduring thecourseofassessmentproceedingsalso,theAOhasnotbroughtonrecordany incriminatingmaterialinrespectofadditionmadebytheAOfortheunsecuredloan receivedduringtheyearunderconsiderationfromtheaforesaidtwoparties.Itisalso submittedthatSection153CoftheActdoesnotlaydownanydifferentprocedurethan providedunder153Aandinabsenceofanyincriminatingmaterial,noadditioncanbe madewhilemakingassessmentu/s153A/153Candinsupportofthiscontention,the appellantrelieduponthedecisionofHon'blejurisdictionalGujaratHighCourtinthecase ofPr.CIT-4vs.SaumyaConstructionPvt.Ltd[2017]387ITR529,otherHighCourtsand AhmedabadTribunalaswellasotherTribunalsinitswrittensubmissionfiledbeforethe AOduringthecourseofassessmentproceedings.Theappellantalsosubmittedthatthe saidlegalcontentionwasalsotakenupbeforetheAOduringthecourseofassessment proceedingsinitswrittensubmissionfiledbeforetheAOandtheAOwithoutconsidering theaforesaidlegalcontentionoftheappellantaswellaswithoutidentifyinganyofthe incriminatingseizedmaterialwithregardtotheadditionmadeforunexplainedcashcredit fortheloanreceivedduringtheyearunderconsiderationfromtheaforesaidtwoparties hasmadetheadditionintheassessmentorderrenderedu/s.143(3)r.w.s.153CoftheAct whichisnottenableunderthelaw.Fromperusaloftheassessmentorder,revealsthefact thattheAOhasnotidentifiedanyoftheseizedmaterialand/orincriminatingmaterial foundandseizedduringthecourseofsearchproceedingsinrespectofunsecuredloan receivedduringtheyearunderconsiderationfromtwounsecuredloanpartiesasstated above.On-goingthroughthecaselawsrelieduponbytheappellant,itisfoundthatthe appellant'scaseissquarelycoveredbythefollowingbindingjudgmentsofhigher authorities:- i)CITvs.SaumyaConstructionPvt.Ltd(TaxappealNo.24of2016)81taxmann.com292 dated 14.03.2016. ii)PCITv.SurnriseFinlease(P)Itd[2018]89taxmann.com1(Gujarat) ii)vs.Ms.LataJain[2017]81taxmann.com83(Del.) iv)DCITvs.shriAnkushSaluja(ITANo.2047/Del/2016)orderdated07.12.2017. v)ThePr.CIT-1vs.DevangiAllasRupa,TaxAppealNo.54of2017withTaxAppealNo.22 of2017toTaxAppealNo.57of2017orderdated02.02.2017(Gujarat).vi)Pr.CIT, IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 26 Ahmedabad-3,vs.DipakJashvantialPanchal,TaxAppealNo.110,111,115and116of 2017,orderdated14.02.2017(Gujarat)vii)Pr.CIT-2,Ahmedabadvs.JayInfrastructure andPropertiesPvt.LtdTaxAppealNo.740of2016,orderofHon'bleGujarartHighCourt dated10.10.2016. viii)Pr.CIT(Central)-3,Ahmedabadvs.DharampalPremchandLtd.ITANo.512/2016ITA 513/2016andITANo.514/2016,Hon'bleDelhiHighCourtOrderdated21.08.2017. ix)IntasPharmaceuticalsLtd.Vs.Dy.CIT(2015)44CCH0490(Ahd.Trib) x)CIT-II,Thanev.ContinentalWarehousingCorporation(NhavaSheva)Ltd[2015]58 taxmann.com78(Bom.) xi)Hon'bleHighCourtofDelhiinthecaseofCIT(Central)-Illvs.KabulChawla[2015]61 taxmann.com412(Delhi) Keepinginviewtheabovementionedbindingordersofhigherjudicialauthorities, additionsofRs4,26,12,849/-aredeleted.Thisgroundofappealisallowed. 8.2Onmerit,onperusalofthedetailsofunsecuredloanparties,itisnoticedthattheAO hasmadetheadditiononaccountofunsecuredloanreceivedduringtheyearfromM/s. AdiCorporation,onPage99oftheassessmentorderofSarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd, theAOhimselfhasstatedthePANNo.ofthesaidlenderparty145(3)r.w.s.1530and incomedisclosedbythesaidpartyforA.Y.2009-10toA.Y.2015-16andforAY.2012-13, thesaidpartyhasdeclaredsubstantialincomeofRs.1,42,25,420/-AsthefirmM/s.Adi CorporationisalsobeingassessedbytheAOoftheappellantandtherefore,allthe necessarydetailsasregardstoreturnofincomeofalltheyearsofthelenderpartyAdi Corporationsoastosaythatidentityand/orgenuinenessofthetransactionwasnotat questionsinceitwascrossverifiablefromPage99oftheassessmentorderrenderedin thecaseofSarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd,thecopyofwhichhassubmittedasperExhibit -IV,PageNo.13toSynopsisofArgumentssubmittedon23.07.2018intheappellate proceedings.ItwasalsosubmittedthattheobservationmadebytheAOonPage4ofthe assessmentorderinthetableprepared,theAOhasmentionedthatthelenderpartyM/s. AdiCorporationhasnotfiledthereturnofincomeforA.Y.2010-11,2011-12&A.Y.2012- 13isfactuallyincorrectinviewofthefactthatintheorderrenderedbythesameAOin thecaseofM/s.SarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltd,onPage99oftheassessmentorder,the AOhasalreadypreparedatableandstatedthedetailsofreturnsofincomefiledbythe lenderpartyM/s.AdiCorporationforA.Y.2009-10toA.Y.2015-16,wherein,thesaid partyhasshownsubstantialincome.Itwasbroughttomynoticethattheunsecuredloan receivedfromM/s.AdiCorporationwasbyaccountpayeechequethroughregularbanking channelanddulyreflectedinthebankaccountoftheappellantaswellasinthebooksof accountsoftheappellant.Theappellantalsoplacedonrecordthecontraconfirmationof thelenderpartyforA.Y.2012-13,bank.statementhighlightingtransaction, acknowledgmentofreturnofincomefiledtoestablishthetransactionhastakenplace throughproperbankingchannel.Oncarefulconsiderationoftheaforesaidfacts,the identityofthedepositorM/s.AdiCorporationanditscreditworthinesshasbeenduly establishedandtherefore,theadditionbytheAOinrespectofunsecuredloanofRs. 1,00,00,000/-receivedbytheappellantisnotjustifiedandthesameisherebydeleted. 8.3WithregardstotheunsecuredloanofRs.3,26,12,849/-fromthelenderpartyShri UtkarshB.Shah,itiscontendedthattheunsecuredloanofRs.3,26,12,849/-hasbeen receivedbytheappellantduringthefinancialyear2011-12relevanttoA.Y.2012-13which isevidentfromtheledgeraccountsubmittedbytheappellantduringthecourseof assessmentproceedingsvideletterdated08.12.2016thecopyofwhichhasbeencompiled atPageNo.1240ofPaperBookNo.VI.Theappellanthasalsosubmittedthecontra IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 27 confirmationreflectingthePANNumberofthelenderpartywhichiscompiledatPageNo. 1240ofPaperBookNo.VI.ItisalsoSubmittedthatthelenderpartyShriUtkarshB.Shah haddulychargedtheinterestandtheappellantafterdeductingtheTDSonsuchinterest haspaid/creditedinterestintheaccountofunsecuredloanpartyUtkarshB.Shahwhich establishthefactthatthetransactionisgenuine.Itisfurthersubmittedthatduringthe courseofassessmentproceedings,appellanthadalreadysubmittedthePANNumber. addressandcontraconfirmationofthelenderpartyforA.Y.2011-12andincomedisclosed inthereturnofincomeofthelenderpartyforA.Y.2012-13declaringtheincomeofRs. 59,64,268/whichitselfprovesthatthefinancialcapacityandcreditworthinessofthe lenderparty.Appellanthasalsotakenacontentionthatfromverificationoftheledger accountofUtkarshB.Shah,itcanbeobservedthattheloanreceivedduringtheyearisof Rs.3,10,00,000/-andinterest17,92,055/-waspaidduringtheyearunderconsideration aswellasTDSofRs.1,79,206/-wasdulydeductedonthesameinrespectofunsecured loanreceivedfromShriUtkarshB.Shah.Itisalsocontendedthatitcannotbedisputed thattheburdentoestablishprimafacethatthegenuinenessandcreditworthinessofthe investorsisthatoftheappellant,butoncetheappellanthasprovedthegenuinenessvis-à- viscreditworthinessofthelendersbyplacingonrecordconcretematerialevidenceinthe formofcontraconfirmationfromthebooksofthelenderpartyreflectingthetransaction undertakenwithregardstothesame,PANNumber,address,contraconfirmationhave alreadybeenprovidedtherebyfulfillingthelitmustestu/s.68oftheAct,thentheburden shiftsontheRevenue.Insupportoftheaforesaidcontention,theappellanthasalsorelied upondecisionofHon'bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofDCITvs.RohiniBuilders256 ITR360(Guj.)andvariousotherjudicialpronouncementsofHon'bleGujaratHighCourt, otherHighCourtandTribunals.Theappellanthasalsointhewrittensubmissionfiledon synopsisofargumentsmadeananalysisastothesimilaritybetweenRohiniBuildersand appellant'scase.Oncarefulconsiderationofthematerialavailableonrecord,theidentity ofthedepositorShriUtkarshB.Shahandcreditworthinessisdulyestablished.Itisalso establishedbeyonddoubtthatthesaidpartyShriUtkashB.Shah,whohasgiventhe unsecuredloantotheappellant,isfilingthereturnofincomeshowingsubstantialincome inhishand.Ihavealsoverifiedtheledgeraccountoftheaforesaidunsecuredloanparty andcontraconfirmationandbankstatementoftheappellantanditisnoticedthatthe appellanthasreceivedtheunsecuredloanduringtheyearunderconsiderationbyaccount payeechequeintheregularbankaccountandtheappellanthasalsopaidtheinterestto theunsecuredloanpartyafterdeductingTDS.Duringthecourseofsearch,noevidence wasfoundwhichshowpaymentincashbytheappellantinlieuofchequesandthereisno suchfindingsgivenbytheAOintheassessmentorder.Consideringtheaforesaidfactsand materialavailableonrecord,theadditionmadebytheAOinrespectofunsecuredloan amountingtoRs.3,26,12,849/-isnotjustifiedandthesameisdeleted.Keepinginview thediscussionabove,inrespectoftheadditionmadefortheunexplainedcreditu/s.68of theActforanamountofRs.4,26,12,849/-isnotfoundjustifiedandhencethesameis deleted.Thisgroundofappealisallowed. 43.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A)theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 43.1ThelearnedDRbeforeusreiteratedthefindingscontainedinthe assessmentorder. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 28 43.2Ontheotherhand,thelearnedARbeforeusreiteratedthesubmissions beforetheauthoritiesbelowandsupportedtheorderofthelearnedCIT-A. 44.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,therewassearchproceedingsunder section132oftheActdated4 th December2014(i.e.duringthefinancialyear 2014-15correspondingtoA.Y.2015-16)whichwascarriedoutinthecaseof BarterGroupi.e.groupconcernoftheassesseeandaccordinglyproceedings undersection153CoftheActwasstartedinthecaseofrespondentassessee.The assessmentundersection143(3)r.w.s.153CoftheActfortheyearunder considerationi.e.A.Y.2012-13wasframedwhereinanadditionofRs, 4,26,12,849/-wasmadeonaccountofunsecuredloanbytreatingthesameas unexplainedcashcreditundersection68oftheAct.Onappealbytheassessee, thelearnedCIT(A)deletedtheadditionmadebytheAObothonthegroundof lawaswellasonthegroundofmerit.Theld.CIT-Awhiledeletingtheadditionon thegroundoflawfoundthattherewasnomaterialofincriminatingnaturein relationtounsecuredloanfoundduringthesearchproceeding,thereforetheyear underconsiderationbeingunabated/completedassessmentyear,anyaddition madeinabsenceofincriminatingmaterialisnotjustified.ThelearnedDRbefore usvehementlyarguedthatthereisnoprovisionundersection153Cwhich restrictstheassessmentorreassessmentincaseofsearchtotheextentof incriminatingmaterialonly. 44.1Attheoutsetwenotethattheissuethatnoassessmentofincomeinthe proceedingundersection153A/153Ccanbemadeintheabsenceofincriminating materialfoundduringthesearchcamebeforeusinIT(SS)NO.317/Ahd/2018an appealbytherevenueiscaseofassesseenamelySarthavInvestment.Theissue hasbeenelaboratelydiscussedinparagraphno.19.3to19.6ofthisorderwhere wehaveconfirmedthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A).Thus,thetechnicalground ofappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed.Assuchweholdthattherecannot beanyadditionofregularitemstothetotalincomeoftheassesseewhichhave IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 29 onlybeendisclosedinthereturnofincome.Admittedlythe additions/disallowancesmadebytheAOrepresenttheregularitemsdisclosedin thereturnofincome,thereforeitisdirectedtotheAOtodeletetheadditionmade byhim. 44.2However,withoutprejudicetotheabovefindingontechnicalground,we proceedtoadjudicatetheissueraisedbytherevenueonmeritalso.The necessaryfactonthemeritisthattheassesseeintheyearunderconsideration hasbeenreceivedunsecuredloanfromthefollowingparties: NameofentityPANLoan(Rs.) UtkarshBShah3,26,12,849 AdiCorporationAALFA7078F1,00,00,000 Total4,26,12,849 44.3Theprovisionofsection68oftheActfastenstheliabilityontheassessee tomakeproperandreasonableexplanationregardingthenatureandsourcesof sumcreditedinthebookstothesatisfactionoftheAO.Ithasbeensettled positionoflawnowbythevariousjudicialpronouncementthattheassesseeis liabletoprovideproofoftheidentityofthelenders/creditors,establishthe genuinenessofthetransactionsandcreditworthinessoftheparties. 44.4Inthecaseonhand,theassesseereceivedanunsecuredloanfromthe2 parties.Thefirstparty,namelyM/sAdiCorporationfromwhomunsecuredloanof Rs.1crorewasreceived.WefindthatthelearnedCIT(A)hasgivenclearfinding thatM/sAdiCorporationhasbeenassessedbythesameAOwhoassessedthe respondentassessee.Thus,allthenecessarydetailsaboutidentity,credit worthinessandgenuinenesswereavailablebeforetheAO.Further,the transactionwascarriedoutthroughbankingchanneldulyreflectedinthebooksof theassesseeaswellcounterparty.M/sAdiCorporationalsoconfirmedthe transactionwhichcanbeverifiedfromconfirmationletterfiledbytheassesseeat thetimeofassessment.M/sAdiCorporationisaregularassesseeanddeclared substantialamountofincomei.e.Rs.1,42,25,420/-fortheyearunder consideration.Therefore,consideringthefactsintotalityweareoftheconsidered IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 30 opinionthatthelearnedCIT(A)rightlydeletedtheadditionmadebytheAOon accountofloanreceivedfromM/sAdiCorporation. 44.5ComingtotheloanofRs.3,26,12,849/-receivedfromShriUtkarshBShah, inthisregard,wenotethattheassesseereceivedtheloanthroughbanking channelandpartialloanamountofRs.3.1croresalongwithinterestofRs. 17,92,055/-afterdeductingTDSwasrepaidthroughbankingchannel.Atthe outset,wenotethattheHon’bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseoftheCITVs. Rohinibuildersreportedin256ITR360heldthatonceloanreceivedthrough bankingandrepaidthroughbankingchannelthenthegenuinenessofsuch transactionisproved,andhence,noadditionshouldbemade.Therelevant observationoftheHon’blebenchisextractedasunder: “Thegenuinenessofthetransactionisprovedbythefactthatthepaymenttothe assesseeaswellasrepaymentoftheloanbytheassesseetothedepositorsismadeby accountpayeechequesandtheinterestisalsopaidbytheassesseetothecreditorsby accountpayeecheques.” 44.6Inviewoftheaboveelaborateddiscussionandafterconsideringfactsin totality,weherebyholdthattheassesseeonmeritsdischargedtheonuscast undersection68oftheAct.Hence,wedonotfindanyreasontointerfereinthe findingofthelearnedCIT(A).Thus,thegroundofappealoftheRevenueonmerit isalsoherebydismissed. 45.Thenextissueraisedbytherevenuevidegroundno.5ofitsappealis thatthelearnedCIT(A)erredindeletingtheprotectiveadditionofRs.6Lakhon accountofcapitalcontributionbyoneofthepartnersoftheassesseefirm. 46.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissueofcreditinthebooksofaccountsof partnershipfirmbythepartnerascapitalcontributionhasbeensettledbyHon’ble GujaratHighcourtinthecaseofCITv.PankajdyestuffIndustriesITReference No.241(Guj.)of1993,dated6-7-2005whereinitwasheldtheamountcredited inthebooksofthefirmbythepartnerascapitalcannotbetaxedinthehandsof IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 31 theassesseefirmundersection68oftheAct.Therelevantobservationofthe Hon’bleHighCourtreadsasunder: "13.Applyingtheaforesaidprinciplestothefactsofthepresentcase,itisapparentthat theassesseehadfurnishedthedetails,whichwoulddischargetheonuswhichlayonthe assessee.Itisnotthecaseoftherevenuethatthepartnersoftheassesseefirmare fictitious.TheIncomeTaxOfficerhasnotdisputedthatthecreditsintheaccountsofthe partnerswerenotdepositsfromthepartners.Moreover,itisanadmittedpositionthatthis wasthesecondyearofthefirm,andthatitwasrunninginloss.ItistruethattheIncome TaxOfficedidnotaccepttheexplanationgivenonbehalfoftheassesseeinrespectofthe newdepositsorcashcreditsintheaccountsofthepartners.Themerenon-acceptanceof thatexplanationdoesnot,however,providematerialforfindingthatthesaidsum representedincomeoftheassesseefirm.AsheldbytheAllahabadHighCourtincase ofJaiswalMotorFinance(supra),intheabsenceofanymaterialtoindicatethatthere wereprofitsofthefirm,theamountcreditedtothepartners'accountscouldnotbe assessedinthehandsofthefirm.Oncethepartnershaveownedthatthemonies depositedintheiraccountsaretheirown,theIncomeTaxOfficerisentitledtoandmay proceedagainstthepartnersandassesseethesameintheirhands,iftheirexplanationis notfoundsatisfactory." 46.1Inviewoftheaboveandafterconsideringfactsintotality,wedonotfind anyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT-A.Hence,thegroundof appealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. 47.ThenextissueraisedbytheRevenuevidegroundNo.6ofitsappealis thatthelearnedCIT(A)erredindeletingtheadditionofRs.5lakhbeingcash depositedinthebank. 48.TheAOintheassessmentproceedingsnotedthatduringthesearchatthe residenceofShriAnilHiralShahanexcelsheetnamedasCCCCC.xlswasfound containinginformationwithregardtounaccountedcashreceiptofSarthav InfratechPvtLtd(SPIL)andthelayeringofsuchunaccountedcashinthebankof accountofvariousindividualsandgroupsconcernduringtheperiod2 nd April2010 to27 th August2010.Theinformationaboutlayeringcashintobankaccountsof differentindividualsandgroupconcernmatchedwiththebankstatementsofsuch individualsorgroupconcern.AspertheimpugnedexcelsheetanamountofRs. 11LakhwasdepositedinthebankoftheassesseeheldwithCorporationbank fromApril2010toAugust2010whichintheopinionoftheAOwasunexplained cashdeposit. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 32 48.1TheAOfurtherfoundthatduringtheyearunderconsiderationi.e.ason8 th October2011cashamountingtoRs.5Lakhdepositedinthebankoftheassessee. Thus,theAOheldsincecashdepositinimmediatepreviousassessmentyearwas notgenuinethereforecashamountingtoRs.5Lakhdepositedintheimpugned bankaccountduringyearunderconsiderationi.e.ason8 th October2011isalso notgenuine.Hence,theAOaddedthesametothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 49.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A)and submittedthatcashwasdepositedoutofcapitalcontributionmadebythepartner namelyShriDharmenSuataria.Theassessee,insupportofhiscontention,has alsofiledacopyofthecashbook. 49.1ThelearnedCIT(A)afterconsideringthefactsdeletedtheadditionmadeby theAObyobservingasunder: Oncarefulconsiderationofthefactsofthecaseandmaterialavailableonrecord,itis evidentthattheAOhasalreadymadeanadditionofRs.6,00,000/-onPage9ofthe assessmentorderpassedu/s.143(3)r.ws.153A(1)(b)oftheITAct,1961dated 30.12.2016forA.Y.2012-13underthehead"CapitalintroductioninPartnershipfirm",in thecaseofShriDharmenMahendrabhaiSutaria,thecopyofassessmentorderhasbeen compiledatPageNo.1to10ofExhibit-1totheSynopsisofArgumentssubmittedbythe appellantalongwithsynopsisofargumentsfiledon23.07.2018.Therefore,oncethe additionhasalreadybeenmadeonsubstantivebasisinthecaseofPartnerShri DharmendraSutariaforA.Y.2012-13,theAOisnotjustifiedinmaketheadditionagainin thecaseofappellantforA.Y.2012-13onaccountofunaccountedcashcreditu/s.68ofthe ActofRs.5,00000/-isnotjustifiedandhencethesameisherebydeleted.Thisgroundof appealisallowed. 50.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A)theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 50.1BoththelearnedDRandtheARvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelowasfavourabletothem. 51.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialavailableonrecord.Admittedlyintheyearunderconsiderationcash IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 33 amountingtoRs.5lakhwasdepositedinthebankaccountoftheassessee.The AOtreatedthesameasaccommodationentrybecauseintheimmediateprevious yearanincriminatingmaterialwasfoundsuggestingthatunaccountedincomeof maincompanyofthegroupnamelySarthavInfrastructurePvtLtddepositedcash inthebankaccountofdifferentgroupconcernincludingtheassesseefirm.Inour consideredopinionthefoundationadoptedbytheAOformakingtheadditionof cashdepositintheyearunderconsiderationismerelybasedonsurmiseand conjectureanditsettledpositionoflawthatnoadditioncanbemadetothetotal incomeoftheassesseeonsurmisesandconjectureorsuspicionhowsoeverstrong itis.ThereisnomaterialwiththeAOsuggestingthatthecashdepositedduring theyearunderconsiderationrepresentsaccommodationentry.Ontheotherhand, theassesseecontendedthatcashwasdepositedoutofcapitalcontributionmade byoneofpartnerofthefirm.TheAOintheassessmentorderalsomadeaddition ofcapitalcontributiononprotectivebasisinthehandoftheassesseefirmand substantivebasisinthehandofthepartner.Thus,itsubstantiallyprovedthat cashwasdepositedoutofcashreceivedfromthepartnerintheformofcapital contribution.Thus,consideringthefactsintotalityasdiscussedabove,wedonot findanyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A).Hence,the groundofappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. 52.Intheresult,theappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.295/Ahd/2018bytheassessee,SarthavInfratech forA.Y.2013-14. 53.Theassesseevidethecaptionedappealchallengedthevalidityofinitiation ofproceedingundersection153CoftheAct,andtherebyvalidityofassessment orderframedundersection143(3)r.w.s.153CoftheAct. 53.1Attheoutset,wenotethatthelearnedARfortheassesseeatthetimeof hearingbeforeussubmittedthathehasbeeninstructedbytheassesseenotto IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 34 presstheimpugnedgroundofappeal.Hencetheimpugnedgroundofappealof theassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. 53.2Intheresult,theappealoftheassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.311/Ahd/2018,bytherevenueincaseofthe assessee,SarthavInfratechforA.Y.2013-14. 54.Atthetimeofhearing,itwassubmittedbytheLd.ARfortheassesseethat theappealfiledbytheRevenueishitbyrecentlyissuedCBDTCircularNo.17of 2019dated08/08/2019revisingthepreviousthresholdspertainingtotaxeffects. ItisinteralianoticedthattheCBDTvideInstructionNo.F.No.279/Misc/M- 93/2018-ITJdt.20/08/2019hasobservedthatCircularNo.17/2019dated 08/08/2019relatingtoenhancementofmonetarylimitsisalsoapplicabletoall pendingappeals.AspertheaforesaidCircularreadwithinstruction,allpending appealsfiledbyRevenueareliabletobedismissedasameasureforreducing litigationwherethetaxeffectdoesnotexceedtheprescribedmonetarylimit whichisnowrevisedatRs.50Lakhs.Intheinstantcase,thetaxeffectonthe disputedissuesraisedbytheRevenueisstatedtobenotexceedingRs.50lakhs andthereforeappealoftheRevenueisrequiredtobedismissedinlimine. 54.1TheLearnedDRfortheRevenuefairlyadmittedtheapplicabilityofthe CBDTCircularNo.17of2019.Accordingly,theappealoftheRevenueis dismissedasnotmaintainable.However,itwillbeopentoRevenuetoseek restorationofitsappealshowinginapplicabilityoftheaforesaidCBDTCircularin anymanneraspertheprovisionsoflaw. 54.2Intheresult,theappealoftheRevenueisdismissed. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 35 ComingtoCO.No.14/Ahd/2020inIT(SS)No.510/Ahd/2019bythe assesseeSarthavInfratechforA.Y.2014-15. 55.Attheoutset,wenotethattheassesseeintheCOfiledbyithassupported theorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparateadjudicationis requiredfortheCOfiledbytheassessee.Hence,wedismissthesameas Infructuous. 55.1Intheresult,theCOfiledbytheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.510/Ahd/2019bytherevenueincaseofthe assessee,SarthavInfratechforA.Y.2014-15. 56.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Onthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserredin deletingadditionofRs.11,00,000/-beingcashdepositinbankaccountseventhoughout ofthetotalsaidcashdeposit,Rs.9,00,000/-remainedunexplainedinthehandsof appellantaswellaspartnerofthefirmDharmenM.Sutaria. 2.Onthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserredin deletingadditionofRs.9,00,000/-madeonprotectivebasisinthecaseofassesseeonthe groundthatadditionalincomeofRs.9,00,000/-hasbeenoffered/disclosedonsubstantive basisbythepartnerofthefirmShriDharmenMSutariainAY2014-15,eventhoughno additionalincomeofRs.9,00,000/-wasdisclosedbythepartnerShriDharmenMSutariain hisROIforAY2014-15,andtheLd.CIT(A)didnotverifythatsubstantiveadditionwas madeinthis 3.Onthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserredin deletingadditionofRs.3,31,64,271/-beingunexplainedcreditintheformofunsecured loanu/s68oftheAct. 4.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)ought tohaveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 5.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatof theA.O.berestoredtotheaboveextent. 57.Theassesseevideletterdated10-06-2022filedAdditionalgroundofappeal challengingthevalidityofproceedingu/s153CoftheActbuttherewasnoappeal filedbytheassessee.AssuchtheassesseeintheappealfiledbytheRevenuein IT(SS)A510/AHD/2019raisedtheadditionalgroundofappeal.Therefore,in IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 36 absenceofappealbytheassesseeandmoreoverconsideringthefactthatthe learnedARfortheassesseeattimehearingbeforeushassubmittedthathewas instructedbytheassesseenottopresstheissueraisedinadditionalgroundof appeal.Hence,weherebyrejectthesameasinfructuous. 58.ThefirstissueraisedbytherevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionmadebytheAOforRs.11,00,000/-onaccountofcash depositedfromunexplainedsources. 59.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissueraisedbytheRevenueinthe captionedgroundofappealfortheAY2014-15isidenticaltotheissueraisedby revenueinIT(SS)ANo.509/Ahd/2019forAY2012-13.Therefore,thefindings giveninIT(SS)ANo.509/Ahd/2019shallalsobeapplicableforassessmentyear underconsiderationi.e.AY2014-15.TheappealoftheRevenueforA.Y.2012-13 hasbeendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.51ofthisorderagainsttherevenue. ThelearnedARandtheDRalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsforthe A.Y.2012-13shallalsobeappliedfortheyearunderconsiderationi.e.AY2014-15. Hence,thegroundsofappealfiledbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 60.Thenextissueraisedbytherevenueisthattheld.CIT-Aerredindeleting theadditionofRs.9Lakhrepresentingpartner’scontributionincashwithout verifyingthefactthatnosuchincomewasofferedbythepartneronsubstantive basis. 61.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissueraisedbytherevenueinthecaptioned groundofappealfortheAY2014-15isidenticaltotheissueraisedbyrevenuein IT(SS)ANo.509/Ahd/2019forAY2012-13.Therefore,thefindingsgivenin IT(SS)ANo.509/Ahd/2019shallalsobeapplicableforassessmentyearunder considerationi.e.AY2014-15.TheappealoftheRevenueforA.Y.2012-13has beendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.46ofthisorderagainsttherevenue.The learnedDRandtheARalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsfortheA.Y. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 37 2012-13shallalsobeappliedfortheyearunderconsiderationi.e.AY2014-15. Hence,thegroundofappealfiledbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 62.ThelastissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionmadebytheAOundersection68oftheActforRs. 3,31,64,271/-beingunsecuredloanrepresentingunexplainedcashcredit. 63.TheAOfoundthattheassesseehasreceivedanunsecuredloanofRs. 1,05,00,000/-andRs.2,26,64,271/-fromthepartiesnamelyGujaratBitumanLtd andAdiCorporationrespectively.Theassesseedidnotfurnishanydetail explainingthegenuinenessoftransactionandcreditworthinessofthecreditors. Thus,theAOtreatedthesaidunsecuredloanasunexplainedcashcreditunder section68oftheActandaddedtothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 64.Onappeal,thelearnedCIT(A)waspleasedtodeletetheadditionmadeby theAOonmerit. 65.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. 65.1BoththelearnedDRandthelearnedARsupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelowtotheextentfavourabletothem. 66.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialavailableonrecord.Attheoutset,wenotethatsimilaradditionhasbeen madebytheAOinowncaseoftheassesseeforA.Y.2012-13againstthe unsecuredloanreceivedfromthepartyM/sAdiCorporation.Theadditionin earlieryearhasbeenmadeonidenticalreasoningwhichcametobedeletedby thelearnedCIT(A)andsubsequentlywealsodeletedtheadditionmadebytheAO onappealpreferredbytheRevenuebearingIT(SS)ANo.509/AHD/2019.The relevantfindingforAY2012-13hasbeengiveninparagraphno.44ofthisorder. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 38 Therefore,consideringallthefactsandmaterialsavailableonrecord,weholdthat thelearnedCIT(A)rightlydeletedtheadditionmadeonaccountofunsecuredloan fromthepartynamelyM/sAdiCorporationforRs.2,26,64,271/-only. 66.1ComingtotheissueofadditionofRs.1,05,00,000/-onaccountoftheloan receivedfromthepartynamelyGujaratBitumentLtd.,wenotefromthe assessmentorderthattheassesseefurnishedcopyofcontraledgerconfirmation fromthepartyshowingthetransactioncarriedoutthroughbankingchannel.The AOhimselffoundthattheimpugnedpartyfortheA.Ys2011-12to2013-14has shownincomeofRs.41.27Lakh,1.42croreandRs.1.56Lakhrespectively. Further,wenotethattheimpugnedloanpartynamelyGujaratBitumenLtdisa well-knownlistedcompanyanddetailsareavailableinpublicdomain.Therefore, inourconsideredviewtheprimaryonustoproveidentityofthecreditor, genuinenessofthetransactionandcreditworthinessofthecreditorhasbeenduly discharged.Inthegivenfacts,thegenuinenessoftheimpugnedloantransaction cannotbedoubtedmerelybecausetheassesseedidnotprovidethebank statementoftheloanparty.Thus,inviewoftheabovedetaileddiscussion,wedo notfindanyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A).Therefore,we upholdthesameanddirecttheAOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhim.Hence, thegroundofappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. 67.Intheresult,theappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoCO.No.26/Ahd/2020inIT(SS)No.510/Ahd/2019bythe assessee,SarthavInfratechforAY2014-15. 68.Theassesseehasraisedfollowinggroundsofobjection: AllthegroundsinthisCrossObjectionsaremutuallyexclusiveandwithoutprejudiceto eachother- 1.TheLd.CIT(A)haserredinlawandonfactsinconfirmingtheactionofLd.A.Oin initiatingtheproceedingsu/s.153CoftheActwithoutproperlyconsideringthecontention IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 39 oftheRespondentaswellasvariousjudicialpronouncementsrelieduponbythe RespondentastheAOhasnotobservedthebasicrequirementforinitiationofassessment proceedingsundersection153CoftheI.T.Act,1961inthecaseofRespondentfirm. 2.TheLd.correctlyonfactsandunderlawafterconsideringthesettledlegalpositionheld thatconsideringtheaforesaidfacts,Iaminagreementwithcontentionofthefirmthatthe cashdepositinaggregateofRs.11,00,000/-inF.Y.2013-14relevanttoA.Y.2014-15is outofthecashwithdrawnandcapitalintroductionbythepartnersandtheadditionmade bytheAOasunexplainedmoneyforanamountofRs.9,00,000/-inthecaseofappellant isunjustifiedonceagainandbadinlawandtantamounttomultipleadditionofthesame amountresultingintodoubletaxationanddoubleassessmentwhichisnotpermissibleas pertheprovisionsofIncomeTaxAct,1961andthejudicialpronouncementsandtheAO hasmadetheadditioninthehandsoftheappellantonceu/s.68asunexplainedcashfor thecapitalcontributionbythepartnerDharmenSutaria,thesamefundscannotbetaxed inthehandsoftheappellantfirminviewoftheHon'bleGujaratHighCourtdecisioninthe caseofCITvs.PankajDyestuffIndustries,ITReferenceNo.241of1993asitleadsto duplicationofadditiononceinthehandsofpartnerandotherinthehandsoftheappellant firm".TheLd.CIT(A)furtherfollowingthejudicialpronouncementoftheHon'bleSupreme CourtinthecaseofAnantharamVeerasinghaiah&Covs.CITA.P.123ITR457andother HighCourt'sdecisionsfortheprincipleoftelescopingeffectcorrectlydeletetheaddition madebytheAOonaccountofunexplainedcashcreditu/s.69foranamountofRs. 11,00,000/-. 3.TheLd.CIT(A)hascorrectlyonfactsandunderthelawafterconsideringthe submissionoftheRespondentaswellasvariousjudicialpronouncementsrelieduponby therespondentheldthatMr.DharmenSutariahasalreadydisclosedtheamountinthe returnofincomefiledu/s.153AoftheActandhencetheAOshouldnothavemadethe additioninthecaseoftheappellantagainasthesamewouldamounttoduplicateaddition ofthesameamountonceinthecaseofDharmenSutariaandagaininthecaseof appellantwhichisnotpermissibleundertheprovisionsoftheIncomeTaxAct"inviewof thedecisionofHon'blejurisdictionalGujaratHighCourtdecisioninthecaseofITOvs. PankajDystuffIndustriesandHon'bleSupremeCourtITOvs.BachuLalKapoorKewal Ram(1966)60ITR74andtheLd.CIT(A)hasrightlydeletedtheadditionmadebytheAO onaccountofunaccountedcashcreditu/s.68oftheActofRs.9,00,000/-. 4.TheLd.CIT(A)correctlyonfactsandunderthelawafterconsideringthefactsofthe case,submissionoftheRespondentheldthatinrespectofunsecuredloanpartyGujarat BitumenLtdfortheanamountofRs.1,05,00,000/-,thesaidparty'sidentityaregetting establishedandtheRespondentalreadyplacedonrecordfromitsbookofaccountsledger accountsofthepartyGujaratBitumenLtdalongwithbanstatementshighlightingthe transactionsinsupportofthecontentionthatunsecureloanreceivedfromGujarat BitumenLtdwasbyaccountpayeechequesthroughproperbankingchannelandthe identityofthedepositorGujaratBitumenLtd.,awell-knownpubliclimitedcompanyand itsaccountsareinpublicdomainandcreditworthinessisdulyestablished.Therespondent hassubmittedfromitsbooksofaccounts,copyofledgeraccountsofthesaidparty alongwithbankstatementshighlightingthetransactioninsupportofthecontentionthat theunsecuredloanreceivedfromGujaratBitumenLtd,wasbyaccountpayeecheques throughproperbankingchannel.Thustheidentityandcreditworthinessofthelenderparty isgettingestablished.TheLd.CIT(A)aftertakingintoconsiderationtheabovematerial heldthattheadditionmadebytheAOonaccountofunsecuredloanofRs.1,05,00,000/- receivedfromGujaratBitumenLtu,isnotjustifiedandtheLd.CIT(A)hasrightlydeleted theadditionmadebytheAOofRs.1,05,00,000/-. InrespectofunsecuredloanpartyAdiCorporation,theAOhasmadetheadditionon accountofunsecuredloanreceivedduringtheyearfromthesaidpartyforanamountof IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 40 Rs.2,26,64,271/-,onPageNo.99oftheassessmentorderofSarthavInfrastructurePvt. Ltd,theAOhimselfhasstatedthePANNumberofthesaidlenderpartyandincome disclosedbythesaidpartyforA.Y.2009-10toA.Y.2015-16andforA.Y.2014-15,thesaid partyhasdeclaredsubstantialincomeofRs.39,75,750/-andforA.Y.2012-13,M/s.Adi CorporationreturnedincomeofRs.1.42CroreasmentionedbyAOhimselfonPage99of theassessmentordersSarthavInfrastructurePvt.Ltdandallnecessarydetailsasregards toreturnofincome,auditedbalancesheet,booksofaccountsandbankstatementsofM/s. AdiCorporationwereavailableontherecordoftheAO.Alltheaforesaidfactsand evidencesavailableonrecordoftheAOestablishtheidentity,genuinenessand creditworthinessofthedepositortolendtheunsecuredloanamountofRs.2,26,64,271/- toappellantandtheLd.CIT(A)appealhasrightlydeletedtheadditionofRs.2,26,64,271/-. Innutshell,keepinginviewallthedetailsandevidencesavailableonrecord,theLd.CIT(A) hasrightlydeletedtheadditionmadebytheAOfortheunexplainedcashcreditu/s.68of theActforanamountofRs.3,31,64,271/-(i.e.Rs.1,05,00,000/-fromGujaratBitumen LtdandRs.2,26,64,271/-fromM/s.AdiCorporation). TheRespondentcravesrighttoadd,amend,alter,modify,substitute,deleteormodifyall oranyoftheabovegroundsofcrossobjection. 69.Theassesseevidefirstgroundofobjectionchallengedthevalidityof initiationofproceedingundersection153CofActonreasoningthatthenotice undersection153CoftheActwasissuedwithoutcomplyingwiththebasic requirementoflaw. 70.Attheoutset,wenotethatthelearnedARfortheassesseeatthetimeof hearingbeforeussubmittedthathehasbeeninstructedbytheassesseenotto presstheimpugnedgroundofappeal.Hencetheimpugnedgroundofappealof theassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. 71.Comingtotheothergroundofobjection,wenotethattheassesseehas supportedtheorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparate adjudicationisrequiredfortheothergroundofobjectionfiledbytheassessee. Hence,wedismissthesameasInfructuous. 72.Intheresult,theCOoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.296/Ahd/2018bytheassessee,ShriDharmenbhai MahendrabhaiSutariaforA.Y.2009-10. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 41 73.Theassesseehasraisedthefollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.TheLd.CIT(A),haserredinlawandonfactsinfailingtoconsiderthefactthat duringtheyearunderconsiderationi.eA.Y.2009-10,thereisacashdepositof Rs.15,55,000/-inthebankaccountofappellant,however,merelyonthebasisof submissionoftheappellantinhisletterdated21.12.2016thatheisgoingtofilethereturn ofincomeu/s.143AbyofferingtheadditionalincomeofRs.65,00,000/-,theAOhasmade theadditionofRs.65,00,000/-inthecaseoftheappellantreservesitsrighttoadd,amend, alterormodifyanyofthegroundsstatehereinaboveeitherbeforeoratthetimeof hearing. 74.TheonlyissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT-Aerredin confirmingtheadditionofRs.65Lacsonaccountofcashdeposit. 75.Thefactsinbriefarethattheassesseeisanindividualandderivingincome frombusiness,partnershipfirmandothersources.HeisalsoadirectorofM/s SarthavInfrastructurePvtLtd.Therewasasearchandseizureactionunder section132oftheActdated04-12-2014carriedoutattheBarter/entryprovider Groupandtheassesseewasalsopartofsearchauthorization.Accordingly, assessmentproceedingsundersection153AoftheActwereinitiatedinthecase oftheassessee. 75.1Duringtheassessmentproceedings,theAOfoundthatthecashamounting toRs.15.5lacsweredepositedinthebankoftheassessee.Onquestionbythe AO,theassesseevideletterdated21-12-2016offeredadditionalincomeofRs.65 Lacsonaccountofopeningcashbalance.Thus,theAOaccordinglymadethe additionofRs.65Lacstothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 76.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A)who confirmedtheorderoftheAObyobservingasunder: 4.2Submissionoftheappellant,thefactsmentionedintheassessmentorderhave beenconsideredcarefully.Thefactsofappellant'scaseisthathehasfiledthereturnof incomeu/s139oftheActon27.04.2010declaringtotalincomeofRs.70,71,749/-forA.Y. 2009-10.However,inresponsetonoticeissuedu/s.153AoftheAct,theappellantdidnot filethereturnofincomebeforetheassessmentorderbytheAOu/s143(3)r.ws. 153A(1)(b)oftheActpassedon30.12.2016.Duringtheyearunderconsideration,the appellanthasmadecashdepositofRs.15,55,000/-inthebankaccountoftheappellantas discussedbytheAOintheassessmentorder.Theappellantduringthecourseof IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 42 assessmentproceedingsinhissubmissiondated:21.12.2016submittedbeforetheAO, thathehimselfhassuo-mottovoluntarilyofferedtheunexplainedcashdepositofRs. 65,00,000/-ason01.04.2008availablewiththeappellantwhichheproposedtoofferas unexplainedcashasanadditionalincomeunderthehead"Incomefromothersources"for thereturnofincometobefiledbytheappellantinresponsetothenoticeissuedu/s153A oftheActforA.Y.2009-10.Theappellanttillthedateofpassingtheassessmentorderby theAOon30.12.2016didnotfilethereturnofincomeinresponsetothenoticeissuedu/s 153AoftheActbypayingthetaxontheunexplainedcashofRs.65,00,000/-on 01.04.2008thathehadagreedtoofferasadditionalincomeinthereturnofincometobe filedinresponsetonoticeu/s.153AoftheAct.Therefore,thoughthereisacashdeposit onlyinthebankaccountoftheappellantofRs.15,55,000/-,theAOhasmadetheaddition ofRs.65,00,000/-onthebasisofsubmissionmadebytheappellantvideletterdated 21.12.2016beforetheAObeingunexplainedcashwiththeappellantason01.04.2008.I didnotfindanyreasontointerfereintotheadditionmadebytheAOforanamountofRs 65,00,000/-asitismadeonthebasisofwrittensubmissionfiledbytheappellanthimself. Therefore,additionsofRs.65,00,000/-areconfirmed.Thisgroundofappealisdismissed. 77.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. 77.1ThelearnedARbeforeussubmittedthattheassesseehasalreadyoffered theimpugnedincomeofRs.65lakhsandpaidtheduetaxthereon.Therefore,no furtheradditioniswarrantedinthegivenfactsofthecase.ThelearnedAR reiteratedthesubmissionsmadebeforetheauthoritiesbelow. 77.2Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelow. 78.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Fromtheorderoftheauthoritiesbelow,wenote thattheassesseeintheoriginalreturnfiledundersection139oftheActdeclared anincomeofRs.46,44,420/-butthesamewasassessedatRs.71,36,230/-vide assessmentorderundersection143(3)oftheActdated21 st November2011. Subsequently,thesearchproceedingundersection132oftheActwascarriedin caseoftheassesseeason4 th December2014andinconsequencetosuchsearch, theproceedingundersection153AoftheActwasinitiatedvidenoticedated22 nd July2015.Theassesseeinresponsetothenoticeundersection153AoftheAct IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 43 didnotfileanyreturnofincome.However,duringtheassessmentproceedingthe assesseevideletterdated21 st December2016offeredanadditionalincomeofRs. 65Lakhonaccountofunexplainedcash.TheAO,consideringthesubmissionof theassesseemadeadditionofRs.65Lakhonaccountofunexplainedcashwhich wasalsoconfirmedbythelearnedCIT-A. 78.1Asperthesubmissionoftheassesseeduringtheappellateproceeding,we notethattheassesseeaftersearchcarriedoutuponhimexaminedhisbank accountandcapitalaccountwiththefirminwhichhehasbeenpartnerfortheA.Y. 2009-10to2015-16andaccordinglypreparedcashbookfortheaforesaidperiod. Wherevertheassesseewasnotabletoexplainthesourcesofcashdepositinthe bankandintroductionofcapitalinthefirmintheformofcash,hedecidedtooffer additionalincomeforthesame.Accordingly,anamountofRs.65Lakhwas workedoutfortheyearunderconsiderationi.e.A.Y.2009-10asadditionalincome. TheassesseebeforethelearnedCIT(A)alsosubmittedthatthoughheworkedout theamountoftheadditionalincomefordifferentyearsfallingbetweenAY2009- 10to2015-16butnotfiledthereturnofincomeundersection153AoftheAct becausehewasnothavingsufficientfundtodeposittaxonsuchadditional income.Oncethefundwasarranged,hedepositedtheduetaxesason30 th December2016andtriedtofilereturnofincome,buttheassessmentorderwas passedbytheAOon30 th December2016. 78.2Fromtheabovesubmissionoftheassesseeduringtheappellateproceeding, itistranspiredthattheassesseehimselfworkedouttheunexplainedincomeofRs. 65Lakhandpaidduetaxesonthesamewithoutbeinganypressurefromthe Revenueauthority.Therevenuemerelyconsideringthesubmissionofthe assesseeassessedtheincomeaftermakingtheadditionofRs.65Lakhtothe incomedeclaredintheoriginalreturnofincomeonaccountofunexplainedcash. Thus,wedonotfindanyreasontointerfereontheorderoftheauthoritiesbelow. Hence,thegroundofappealoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 44 79.Intheresult,theappealoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.327/Ahd/2018bytheRevenueincaseofassessee namelyDharmenbhaiMahendrabhaiSutariaforA.Y.2009-10. 80.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheofRs.2,53,19,733/-madebytheAOasunsecuredloans u/s68oftheAct. 2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsinadmittingadditionalevidenceproducedbytheassesseebeforethe CIT(A)inrespectofunsecuredloanwithoutfollowingtheprocedureprescribedinRule46A andwithgivingAssessingOfficeropportunitytoexaminetheevidenceasmandatedby Rule46AoftheITRules,1962 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.55,17,500/-madebytheAOascapital introductioninpartnershipfirm. 4.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.5,856/-madebytheAOonaccountof unaccountedinterestinForm26AS. 5.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)oughtto haveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 6.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatoftheA.O. berestoredtotheaboveextent. 81.ThefirstissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.2,53,19,733/-madeundersection68oftheActon accountofunsecuredloan. 82.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedingsfoundthatthebookof accountsoftheassesseewascreditedbySaralManagementandConsultancyfor Rs.2,53,19,733/-onaccountofunsecuredloan.TheAOtreatedthesameas unexplainedcashcreditundersection68oftheActandaddedtothetotalincome oftheassessee. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 45 83.Onappealbytheassessee,thelearnedCIT(A)deletedtheadditionmade bytheAOonmeritaswellasontechnicalgrounds.Therelevantfindingofthe learnedCIT(A)containedinpara5.2page32to35ofhisorderasreproduced below: 5.2Submissionoftheappellant,thefactsmentionedintheassessmentorderhave beenconsideredcarefullyandintotality.TheAOhasdiscussedthisissueinPara7on Page3to7oftheassessmentorder.TheAOhasmadeanobservationthatitispertinent tomentionherethatincaseofSaralManagement&Consultancy,majorityoffundshave comefromCUBA/cno:37918ofSthapatyaShilpConstruction,Sthapatya,inturn,has takenfundsfromCUBa/c37954ofSarthavProjects.Thisentityisalsosourcingfunds fromSiddhamFinance&Others.Further,SarthavProjectshasfiledreturnsofnominal income.Onthebasisofaforesaidobservation,theAOhasreachedtotheconclusionthat thecreditworthinessoflenderandgenuinenessoftransactionsnotprovedandunsecured loanofRs.2,53,19,733/-receivedbytheappellantfromSaralManagementand Consultancyduringtheyearunderconsiderationisaddedtothetotalincomeofthe appellantTheappellant'sargumentsareintwofold.Firstly,onthebasisofthelegal contentionthatduringthecourseofsearchproceedings,noincriminatingmaterialas regardstoloanreceivedfromtheaforesaidpartywerefoundandseized.Therefore,the additionmadebytheAOinrespectofloanreceivedduringtheyearu/s68oftheActwhile framingtheassessmentorderu/s143(3)r.ws.153A(1)(b)oftheActinabsenceofany incriminatingseizedmaterialfound.Itisalsosubmittedthatsection153CoftheActdoes notlaydownanydifferentprocedurethanprovidedu/s153Aandinabsenceofany incriminatingmaterial,noadditioncanbemadewhilemakingassessmentu/s153A/153C. TheappellantrelieduponthedecisionofHon'blejurisdictionalGujaratHighCourtinthe caseofPr.CIT-4vs.SaumyaConstructionPvt.Ltd[2017]529,otherHighCourtsand Hon'bleAhmedabadTribunalaswellasotherTribunalsinhiswrittensubmissionfiled duringthecourseofappealhearing.TheappellantalsosubmittedthattheAOwithout identifyinganyoftheincriminatingseizedmaterialinrespectoftheunsecuredloan receivedfromSaralManagementConsultancymadetheadditionintheassessmentorder renderedu/s143(3)r.w.s.153A(1)(b)oftheActwhichisnottenableunderthelaw.Itis alsosubmittedthatsection153CoftheActdoesnotlaydownanydifferentprocedure thanprovidedu/s153Aandinabsenceofanyincriminatingmaterial,noadditioncanbe madewhilemakingassessmentu/s.153A/153C.Theappellantrelieduponthefollowing judicial pronouncementsinsupportofhiscontention.- 1)Pr.CIT-4vsSaumyaConstructionPvt.Ltd[2017]387ITR529 ii)PCITV.SunriseFinlease(P.)Ltd.[2018]89taxmann.com1(Gujarat) iii)PCITV.Ms.LataJain[2017]81taxmann.com83(Delhi) iv)DCITV.ShriAnkushSalujavideorderdated07.12.2017(ITANo.2047/Del./2016 v)ThePr.CIT-1vs.DevangiAliasRupa,TaxAppealNo.54of2017withTaxAppealNo. 22of2017toTaxAppealNo.57of2017orderdated02.02.2017(Gujarat),Hon'bleGujarat HighCourt. vi)Pr.CIT,Ahmedabad-3,vs.DipaklashvantialPanchal,TaxAppealNo.110,111,115and 116of2017,orderdated14.02.2017(Gujarat).vil)Pr.CIT-2,Ahmedabadvs.Jay InfrastructureandPropertiesPvt.Ltd.TaxAppealNo.740of IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 46 2016,orderofHon'bleGujaratHighCourtdated10.10.2016.vill)Pr.CIT(Central)-3 Ahmedabadvs.DharampalPremchandLtd,ITANo.512/2016,ITA513/2016andITANo. 514/2016,Hon'bleDelhiHighCourtorderdated21.08.2017. x)IntasPharmaceuticalsLtd.Vs.DeputyCommissionerofIncomeTax(2015)44CCH 0490(AhdTrib)x)CIT-II,Thanev.ContinentalWarehousingCorporation(NhavaSheva) Ltd.[2015]58taxmann.com78(Bombay) xi)HighcourtofDelhiInthecaseofCommissionerofIncomeTax(Central)-IIIvs.Kabul Chawla,[2015]61taxmann.com412(Delhi) Onmerit,onperusalofthedetailsofunsecuredloanparty,itisnoticedthattheAOhas madetheadditiononaccountofunsecuredloanreceivedduringtheyearfromSaral ManagementandConsultancy,PropMahendrabhaiM.Sutaria-HUF.Theidentityofthe loanpartyisgettingestablishedastheAObeingtheAssessingofficerofSarthav InfrastructurePvt.Ltdhasdulyprovidedintheassessmentorderof SarthavinfrastructurePvtLtdforAY2009-10atPageNo.99thedetailswithregardtoSaral ManagementandConsultancyhimselfstatedthedetailssuchasPANNumber,Returned incomefromA.Y.2009-10tillAY2015-16andtherefore,allthenecessarydetailsas regardstothePANandreturnofincomeforalltheyearswereontherecordoftheAO TheLenderpartyhasfiledthereturnofincomeforA.Y2009-10showingtotalincomeof Rs2,22,26,632/-TheAOatPage19oftheassessmentorderofSarthavInfrastructure Pvt.LtdforA.Y.2009-10hasprovidedachartshowingPANNoandreturnofincome details,thusprovidingtheidentityandcreditworthinessofthepartiesofSarthavGroup. Further,theappellanthasalsosubmittedthatinrespectofSaralManagement& Consultancy(Prop.MahendraSutaria-HUF)unsecuredloanforanamountofRs. 2,53,19,733/-hasbeenreceivedduringtheyearunderconsiderationandRs3,87,21,500/- wasalsorepaidduringtheyearunderconsiderationandhencetheadditionofRs. 2.53.19.733/-isnotjustified.Moreover,duringtheyearunderconsiderationthesaid unsecuredloansareconvertedintoloansandadvancesastherepaymentamount(i.eRs: 3,87,21,500/-)ismorethantheamountreceived(ie:Rs.2,53,19,733/-).Further,loans andadvancesgivenduringtheyeardoesnotfallundertheambitofsection68asitisnot freshloansreceivedduringtheyearbutmerelyrepaymentsofadvancesgiven.Thatapart theAOoftheappellantisalsotheAOofSaralManagement&Consultancywhichisof SarthavGroupandwasundertheassessmentproceedingsu/s143(3)rws.153Cbefore theAOandhencethereturnofincomeoftheaforesaidlenderpartyaswellasbank statementandbooksofaccountswerealreadyavailableontherecordoftheAOThe appellanthasalsoplacedonrecordtheledgeraccountofDharmenSutanainthebooksof SaralManagementandConsultancy,ITR,confirmationaswellasbankstatementstoprove thatthetransactionhastakenplacethroughproperbankingchannelTheappellanthas alsorelieduponthedecisionofdecisionofHon'bleHighCourtofGujaratinthecaseof DCITvs.RohiniBuilders256ITR360andvariousjudicialpronouncementsoftheHon'ble GujaratHighCourt,otherHighCourtsandTribunalsandalsomadeacomparisonand similaritybetweenthedecisionofRohiniBuilders(citedsupra)andtheappellant'scase underdisputeOncarefulconsiderationofabovementionedmaterial,theidentityofthe lenderpartySaralManagementandConsultancy(PropMahendrabhaiM.Sutaria)and creditworthinessisdulyestablished.Itisalsoseenthatappellanthasalsorepaidan amountofRs.3,87,21,500/-duringtheyearunderconsideration.Therefore,theaddition madebytheAOonaccountofunsecuredloanofRs.2,53,19,733/-receivedduringthe yearunderconsiderationfromSaralManagementandConsultancy,isnotjustifiedandthe sameisherebydeleted.Thisgroundofappealisallowed. 84.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT-A,therevenueisinappeal beforeus. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 47 84.1ThelearnedDRbeforeussupportedtheorderoftheAObyreiteratingthe findingscontainedintheassessmentorder. 84.2Ontheotherhand,thelearnedARbeforeusvehementlysupportedthe orderofthelearnedCIT-A. 85.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Attheoutset,wenotethattransactionscarriedout bytheassesseewiththepartynamelySaralManagement&Consultancyiscurrent accountwheretheassesseereceivedandprovidedfundfromeachotheronneed basis.Assuchduringtheyearunderconsideration,theassesseereceivedan amountaggregatingtoRs.2,53,19,733/-fromimpugnedpartyagainstwhichpaid anamountaggregatingtoRs.3,87,21,500/-.Accordinglyattheyearend,the partybecomesdebtoronaccountofloansandadvancesinsteadofcreditor.All thesetransactionswerecarriedoutthroughthebankingchannel.Therefore, consideringthejudgmentofHon’bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofDCITvs. RohiniBuilder(supra)whereitwasheldthatgenuinenessofloantransaction provedbythefacttheamountreceivedthroughbankingchannelandrepayment ofthesamemadethroughbankingchannel.Therefore,weholdthatnoaddition undersection68oftheActisrequiredtobemade. 85.1Bethatasmaybe,wenotethattheregularassessmentundersection 143(3)oftheActhasalreadybeencompleted.Aspertheprincipleslaiddownby theHon’bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofPCITvs.SaumyaConstructionPvt Ltd.(Supra)thecompletedassessmentcannotbedisturbedintheabsenceofthe incriminatingmaterialfoundduringthesearchproceedings.Fromtheperusalof theassessmentorderandthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A),wenotethatno incriminatingmaterialwasfoundorreferredtobytheAOinrelationtounsecured loan.Therefore,additionmadebytheAOinabsenceofincriminatingmaterialis notsustainable.Onthisissuedetailedfindinghasbeengivenbyusvide IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 48 paragraphno19ofthisorderwhileadjudicatingtheRevenueappealbearing IT(SS)ANo.317/Ahd/2018.Fordetaileddiscussion,pleaserefertotheaforesaid paragraphofthisorder.Thus,inviewoftheabovedetaileddiscussion,wedonot findanyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT-A.Hence,theground ofappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. 86.ThenextissueraisedbytherevenueisthatthelearnedCIT-A,erredin deletingtheadditionof₹55,17,500/-onaccountofunexplainedcontribution towardsthepartnercapitalaccountinthefirm. 87.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedingfoundthattheassesseehas introducedcapitalcontributionforRs.55,17,500/-intheformofcashinthe followingfirms: RowLabelsSumofcashcontribution 2009-105517500 SarthavProjects2000000 SthapatyaShilpBuilder1117500 SthapatyaShilpConstruction1700000 SthapatyaShilpDevelopers700000 87.1TheAO,intheabsenceofsatisfactoryexplanation,treatedthesameas unexplainedinvestmentandaddedtothetotalincomeoftheassesseeunderthe provisionofsection69oftheAct. 88.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT-Awho deletedtheadditionmadebytheAObyobservingasunder: 62Submissionoftheappellantandassessmentorderhasbeencarefullyconsidered.The factsofappellant'scaseisthathehasfiledthereturnofincomeu/s139oftheActon27 042010declaringtotalincomeofRs7071.749/-forAY2009-10Further,inresponseto noticeu/s153A,theappellantdidnotfilethereturnofincomebutadmittedRs65lakhas undisclosedincomefortheyear.ThesamewasaddedbytheAOandconfirmedbymein para4.2ofthisorderOncetheunexplainedcashofRs65,00,000/-istakeninto considerationandthereafterthecashbookispreparedandsubmittedbytheappellant,the cashcontributioninpartnershipfirmwhereheisapartnerisrequiredtobetreatedas IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 49 explainedagainsttheopeningbalanceofunexplainedcashofRs.65,00,000/-ason 01.04.2008shownbytheappellant.Hence,theonlyissuewhichremainstobedealtwith istheclaimoftheappellantforgivingthetelescopingeffectandsetoffofunexplained cashofRs.65,00,000/-shownbytheappellanton01.04.2008inthecashbooksubmitted bytheappellantforAY2009-10toAY2015-16beforetheAOaswellasduringthecourse ofappellateproceedings.ThusfollowingvariousjudicialpronouncementsoftheHon'ble ApexCourtandvariousHighCourtsrelieduponbytheappellantinhisSynopsisof Argumentsfiledon13.08.2018intheappealproceedings,theadditionmadebytheAOfor anamountofRs.55,17,500/-asperthetablepreparedinPara8oftheassessmentorder forthecapitalcontributioninvariouspartnershipfirmsintheformofcashbytheappellant isrequiredtobetreatedasfullyexplainedandthetelescopingeffectandsetoffhastobe givenagainsttheunexplainedcashofRs.65,00,000/-shownbytheappellantason 01.04.2008forwhichtheAOhasmadetheadditionintheassessmentorderand confirmedbymeinpara4.2ofthisorder.Theappellanthasalsotakenacontentionthat theAOhasnottakenintoconsiderationthereplyfiledbyappellantvideletterdated 26.12.2016andmadeafactualerrorandmadeaduplicateanddoubleadditionasthe additionofRs.65,00,000/-whichisinclusiveofcapitalcontributioninPartnershipfirmby theappellantforanamountofRs55,17,500/-andalsorelieduponthedecisionofthe Hon'bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofITOvs.BachuLalKapoorKewalRam[1966]60ITR74 wherein,ithasbeenheldthattheActdoesnotenvisagetaxationofthesameincome twice"andthisviewwasagainreiteratedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtinthecaseof LaxmipatSinghaniavs.CIT[1996]72ITR291holdingthatitisfundamentalruleofthelaw oftaxationthatunlessotherwiseexpresslyprovided,incomecannotbetaxedtwice. RelianceisplacedonthedecisionoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtgiveninthecaseofSri KrishnaDasVs.TownCommittee,ChirgaonandalsothedecisionofHon'bleGujaratHigh CourtincaseofPr.CITVs.KanubhaiManganlalPatel(2017)79taxmann.com257andit iscontendedthattheActnowhereprovidesthatparallelassessmentscanbemadein respectofthesameincomeontwodifferentpersons.Onverificationofthefactsofthe case,itisfoundthattheAOhasalreadymadeanadditionofRs65,00,000/-inappellant's caseonaccountofcashdepositinvariousbankaccountsincludingcapitalcontributionin cashonthebasisofadditionalincomeofferedbytheappellantvidesubmissiondated21 122016.Thecontentionoftheappellantisfoundcorrect.Consideringtheaforesaidfacts, IherebydirecttheAOtodeletetheadditionmadebytheAOforanamountofRs. 55,17,500/-onaccountofcapitalcontributionintroducedinvariouspartnershipfirmsas perthedetailsgivenbytheAOinPara8oftheassessmentorderThisgroundofappealis allowed. 89.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A)theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 89.1BoththelearnedDRandthelearnedARsupportedthefindingofthe authoritiesbelowtotheextentfavourabletothem. 90.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialavailableonrecord.Admittedlytheassesseeintroducedcashinthe partnershipfirmsascapitalcontribution.TheAOfoundthattheassesseedidnot IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 50 explainthesourceofsuchcashintroducedinthefirms.Hence,theAOaddedthe sametoitstotalincome. 90.1Inthisregard,wefindthattheassesseeonaccountofcashdepositand cashintroducedinfirmsascapitalofferedanadditionalincomeofRs.65Lakhand paidduetaxesonthesame.TheadditionalincomeforRs.Rs.65lakhwasadded tothetotalincomeoftheassesseebytheAOandthesamehasbeenconfirmed bythelearnedCIT(A)aswellasbyusvideparagraphno.78ofthisorder. Therefore,inourconsideredview,makingseparateadditiononaccountofcapital contributioninthefirmsbytheassesseewillleadtodoubletaxation/additionin thehandsoftheassesseewhichisnotdesirableunderprovisionoftheAct.Thus, weherebyupholdthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A)anddirecttheAOtodelete theadditionmadebyhim.HencethegroundofappealoftheRevenueishereby dismissed. 91.ThenextissueraisedbytherevenueisthatthelearnedCIT-A,erredin deletingtheadditionmadebytheAOfor₹5,856/-beinginterestincomeasper Form-26ASbutnotrecordedinthebooksofaccounts. 92.TheAOfoundthattheassesseeduringtheyearreceivedinterestincomeof ₹5,856/-fromCityUnionBankbutthesamewasnotofferedtotax.Hence,the AOaddedthesametothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 93.Onappealbytheassessee,thelearnedCIT-Adeletedtheadditionmadeby theAObyobservingthattheassesseehasalreadyofferedtheinterestincomeand paidduetaxesonthesame. 94.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 51 94.1BoththelearnedDRandthelearnedARsupportedthefindingofthe authoritiesbelowtotheextentfavourabletothem. 95.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,theassesseereceivedinterestincome fromtheCityUnionBank.TheAOallegedthattheassesseehasnotincludedthe impugnedinterestincomeinthecomputationofincomewhereastheassessee beforethelearnedCIT-Acontendedhehasofferedtheinterestincometotax.The claimoftheassesseehasbeenfoundcorrectbythelearnedCIT-A.Thelearned DRbeforeushasnotbroughtanymaterialcontrarytothefindingofthelearned CIT-A.Therefore,weherebyupholdthefindingoflearnedCIT(A)anddirectthe AOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhim.Hence,thegroundofappealofthe Revenueisherebydismissed. 96.IntheresultappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoCONo.148/Ahd/2019inIT(SS)ANo.327/AHD/2018bythe assesseeforassessmentyear2009-10. 97.Attheoutset,wenotethattheassesseeintheCOfiledbyithassupported theorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparateadjudicationis requiredfortheCOfiledbytheassessee.Hence,wedismissthesameas Infructuous. 98.Intheresult,theCOoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.326/Ahd/2018bytheRevenueincaseofassessee namelyDharmenbhaiMahendrabhaiSutariaforA.Y.2010-11. 99.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 52 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.2,25,84,000/-madebytheAOas unexplainedcashdepositinvariousbankaccountsu/s.69oftheAct. 2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.2,23,32,374/-madebytheAOas unsecuredloansu/s.68oftheAct. 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.10,75,000/-madebytheAOascapital introductioninPartnershipFirm. 4.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)oughtto haveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 5.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatoftheA.O. berestoredtotheaboveextent. 100.TheinterconnectedissueraisedbytherevenuevidegroundNos.1and3 ofitsappealisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredindeletingtheadditionmadebythe AOofRs.2,25,84,000/-andRs.10,75,000/-onaccountofcashdepositsinbank accountsandcashintroducedinfirmsascapitalrespectively. 101.TheAOfoundthatduringtheyearunderconsideration,cashamountingto Rs.2,25,84,000/-wasdepositedinthedifferentbankaccountoftheassessee. Likewise,theassesseemadeacashinvestmentinpartnershipfirmsascapitalfor Rs.10,75,000/-.Howevernosatisfactoryexplanationwasfurnishedbythe Assesseeregardingthesourcesofsuchcashdepositsandcashinvestment.Hence theAOaddedthesametothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 102.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A). 102.1TheassesseebeforethelearnedCIT(A)submittedthathehasanopening cashbalanceofRs.35,88,500/-andduringtheyearreceivedcashfromfirms namelySthpatyaShilpOrganiserandmaderegularwithdrawalsfrombank accounts.Thiscashwasutilizedformakinginvestmentinthepartnershipfirmsas wellasre-depositinthebanks.Theassesseeinsupportofhiscontention furnishedcashbookfortheperiodAYs2009-10to2015-16.Theassesseealso IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 53 claimedthatthecashwithdrawnfromthebankandreceivedfromabove mentionedpartnershipfirmwasnotutilizedanywhereelseotherthanredepositing inbankaccountsandinvestmentinpartnershipfirms. 102.2ThelearnedCIT(A)afterconsideringthefactsintotalitydeletedthe additionmadebytheAObyobservingasunder: Regardingdepositinbank: ItisalsosubmittedthattheAOhasnotprovedthattheappellanthasutilizedthecashin anyothermannerthantheonewhichisrepresentedbytheappellantandAOhasalsonot broughtonrecordanythingtoshowotherwise.Thus,itcanbeseenthatonlyinaspanof months,theappellanthasdepositedthecashwhichwaswithdrawnduringtheyearunder consideration.Further,itisalsopointedoutthatappellanthasalsomadethewithdrawals atregularintervalsandreceivedthecashfromvariouspartnershipfirmsandtheamounts thatwereremainingwiththeappellantoutofsuchwithdrawalsweredepositedinthebank accountandaccordingly,thesourceofcashdepositremainsfullyexplainedbythe appellantbeingregularcashwithdrawalsandamountofopeningcashbalance,henceno additionwithrespectofsuchcashdepositsbeingfullyexplainedcanbemadeinhandsof theappellantascanbeascertainedfromthedetailedcashbookandcorrespondingentries inthebankstatementassubmittedwiththeAOatthetimeofassessmentproceedings Theappellanthasalsosubmittedthatthereisnorequirementwithregardtothereason forcarryinganyamountofcashbalanceandoricethesourceofdepositisexplained subsequentwithdrawalfromexplainedremainsexplainedaswellassubsequentredeposit intothebankaccountTheappellanthasrelieduponthedecisionofHon'bleSupremeCourt inthecaseofDhakeshwariCottonMillsLtdvs.CIT.26ITR775(SC).Theappellantdrawn myattentiontothedeosionofChandigarhTribunalinthecaseofArundeepSinghProp.Vs. JointCommissionerofIncomeTax,ITANo.860/CHD/2016,Hisalsosubmittedthatmere cashdepositsinthebankaccountoftheappellantdonotrenderthetransactionstobe questionableinsupportofwhichtheappellantrelieduponthefollowingjudicial pronouncements- 1)CITvs.ShaileshKumarRasiklalMehta(2014)41tamann.com550(Gujarat) ii)GurpalSinghvs.ITO(2016)71taxmann.com108/2016]159TD797(AmritsarTrib.) iii)BirBahadurSiwalivs.ITO(2015)53taxmann.com366(Delhi-Trib] iv)JaspalSinghSehgalvs.ITO(2017)83taxmann.com246(Mumbai-Trib]v)MehulV. Vyasvs.ITO(2017)80taxmann.com311(Mumbai-Trib] vi)SudhirbhaiPravinkantThakervs.ITO.(2017)88taxmann.com382(Ahmedabad-Trib] Further,thecopyofcashchartreflectingopeningbalances,cashwithdrawals,cash depositsandclosingbalanceshasalsobeensubmittedduringthecourseofhearingwhich isasunder: CashChartforA.Y2009-10to2015-16 YearsOpeningCashOthercashCashCashClosing IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 54 BalancedepositsreceiptsdisclosurewithdrawalsBalance A.Y.2009- 10 15,55,00045,00,00065,00,00017,00,22535,88,500 A.Y.2010- 11 35,88,5002,19,84,00020,00,000-1,80,05,00034,500 A.Y.2011- 12 34,5004,95,000-31,50,00045,00,00035,61,850 A.Y.2012- 13 35,61,85030,00,000--20,00,00019,01,850 A.Y.2013- 14 19,01,85025,00,00010,00,000-23,50,00013,51,850 A.Y.2014- 15 13,51,8505,00,000--18,00,00017,51,850 Therewasnoincriminatingmaterialfortheyearunderconsideration.Hence,theadditions madebytheAOinrespectofcashdepositsduringtheyearu/s.68whileframing assessmentorderu/s143(3)rws153CoftheActinabsenceofanyincriminatingmaterial foundandseizedduringthecourseofsearchproceedingsisnotjustifiedinsupportofthe saidcontention,theappellantrelieduponfollowingjudicialpronouncements- 1)Pr.CIT-4vsSaumyaConstructionLtd(2017)387ITR529 ThePr.CIT-1vs.Devang)AliasRupa,TaxAppealNo.54of2017withTaxAppealNo,22 of2017toTaxAppealNo.57of2017.orderdated02.02.2017(Gujarat),Hon'bleGujarat HighCourt. )Pr.CIT,Ahmedabad-3,vs.DipaklashvantialPanchal,TaxAppealNo.110,111,115and 116of2017,orderdated14.02.2017(Gujarat). e)Pr.CIT-2,Ahmedabadvs.JayInfrastructureandPropertiesPvt.Ltd.TaxAppealNo. 740of2016,orderofHon'bleGujaratHighCourtdated10.10.2016. v)Pr.CIT(Central)-3Ahmedabadvs.DharampalPremchandLtd,ITANo.513/2016,ITA 513/2016andITANo.514/2016,Hon'bleDelhiHighCourtorderdated21.08.2017.vil INTASPHARMACEUTICALSLTD.VS.DEPUTYCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX(2015)44 CCH0490AhdTrib,Hon'bleITATAhmedabad. vii)CIT-II.Thanev.ContinentalWarehousingCorporation(NhavaSheva)Ltd.[2015]58 taxmann.com78(Bombay)"Noadditioncanbemadeinrespectofassessmentswhich havebecomefinalifnoincriminatingmaterialisfoundduringsearch" viii)HighcourtofDelhiInthecaseofCommissionerofIncomeTax(Central)-illvs.Kabul Chawla,[2015]61taxmann.com412(Delhi) ix)PCITV.SunriseFinlease(P.)Ltd.[2018]89taxmann.com1(Gujarat)x)PCITV.Ms. LataJain[2017]81taxmann.com83(Delhi) xi)DCITV.ShriAnkushSalujavideorderdated07.12.2017(ITANo.2047/Del./2016 xii)Dy.CITRange2,Lucknowvs.ShriPawanAgrawalITANo.374/LKW/2013xii)Dy.CIT Range2,Lucknowvs.ShriSudhirShanakrHalwasiyaITANo.285/LKW/2016 Thus,theadditionsmadebytheAOaredeleted.Thisgroundofappealisallowed. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 55 Regardinvestmentinfirm 7.2Thesubmissionoftheappellantandtheassessmentorderhasbeencarefully consideredThefactsofthecaseinbriefarethattheappellantfiledthereturnforA.Y. 2010-11u/s139oftheActon03.11.2011declaringtotalincomeofRs34,18,656/-which iscompiledatPgNo212to221ofPaperbookNo.II.Further,inresponsetonoticeissued u/s153AoftheActtheappellantfiledthereturnofincomeu/s153Aon07122016 declaringtotalincomeofRs34,18,660/-whichcompiledPgNo222to235ofPaperbook- II.Itissubmittedthatinthesynopsisofargumentsfiledon13.08.2018forAY2009-10 theappellanthasalreadytakenthecashdisclosureofRs65,00,000/-on01.04.2008.Itis alsocontendedthatappellanthasalreadysubmittedthecashbookforA.Y.2009-10to 2015-16asperExhibit-ltoappellant'sletterdated21.12.2016whichhasbeencompiledat PageNo117Ato117YofConsolidatedPaperBook.Itissubmittedthatasperthecash booksubmittedforalltheassessmentyears,ason31.03.2009therewasaclosingbalance ofRs.35.88.500/-whichwastheopeningbalanceason01.04.2009.Further,thecash booksosubmittedbytheappellantwithnarrationhasexplainedthesourceofeachand everycashdepositandcapitalcontributioninpartnershipfirms.Therewascapital contributionofRs.3,50,000/-inthefirm'SarthavProjects'andofRs7,25,000/-inthefirm SthapatyaShilpBuilders'Asevidentfromthecashbook,thesecapitalcontributionarefrom theopeningcashbalanceon01.04.2009ofRs35,88,500/-andfromothercash withdrawals.Further,thesaidfactscanbeverifiedfromthecashbook,bankstatement andthecapitalaccountsubmittedatthetimeofassessmentproceedingsandduly compiledinthePaperbookHencethesourceofsuchcapitalcontributionremainsfully explainedandhencetheadditionmadebytheAOisbadinlaw.Consideringthefactsof theappellant'scase,IholdthattheadditionmadebytheAOonaccountofcapital introductioninthepartnershipfirmsforanamountofRs.10,75,000/-isnotjustifiedand thesameisherebydeleted.Thisgroundofappealisallowed. 103.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 103.1ThelearnedDRbeforeusvehementlysupportedtheorderoftheAOby reiteratingthefindingscontainedintheassessmentorder. 103.2Ontheotherhand,thelearnedARbeforeusvehementlysupportedthe orderofthelearnedCIT-A. 104.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Inthepresentcase,thecashdepositedbythe assesseewastreatedasunexplainedcashcreditundersection69oftheActby theAOonthereasoningthattheassesseefailedtomakesatisfactoryexplanation regardingthesourcesofsuchcashdeposit.Theassesseeduringappellate proceedingbeforethelearnedCIT(A)explainedthatthecashwasdepositedout IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 56 oftheopeningcashbalance,cashreceiptfrompartnershipfirmM/sSthapatya ShilpOrganisorandcashwithdrawalmadeintheyearunderconsideration.The learnedCIT(A)concurredwithexplanationoftheassesseeandaccordinglywas pleasedtodeletetheadditionmadebytheAO. 104.1FromorderoftheAOandthelearnedCIT(A),wenotetheassesseeoffered explanationregardingthesourcesofeverydepositmadeinthebankaccountsand insupporthisexplanationfurnishedcopyofcashbook,bankbooksfortheperiod startingfrom01-04-2008to31 st March2015andotherrelevantledger.The activityoftheassessee,i.e.withdrawingthecashandre-depositingthesamein thebankaccountonaregularbasis,mightappeartobeveryunusual.Itis becausenoprudentbusinessmanwilldoso,particularlyinasituationwherethere wasalreadysufficientcashinhandavailablewiththeassesseeallthetime. Indeed,asuspicionarisesinthemindforthegenuinenessofthetransactionon handasdiscussedabove. 104.2However,itisthesettledlaw,asuspicioncannottaketheplaceofthe evidenceasheldbyHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofCITvs.DaulatRam Rawatmullreportedin53ITR574,therelevantextractreadsasunder: “ThecircumstancesrelieduponbyMr.Sastridoraisesuspicion,butsuspicioncannottake theplaceofevidence.” 104.3Forthesakeofrepetition,wealsonotethatindeed,theactivityof withdrawingthecashandredepositthesameinthebankisveryunusualpractice butthereisnoprohibitionunderanyofthelawforthetimebeinginforcefor doingsuchactivity.Thus,merelyanunusualactivityoftheassesseedoesnotgive anyauthoritytotherevenuetomaketheadditiontothetotalincomeofthe assessee. 104.4Infacttheassesseeinthegivenfactsandcircumstanceshasdischarged theonusimposedundertheprovisionsofsection69oftheActbyfurnishingthe necessarydetailswhichhavebeenelaboratelydiscussedinthepreceding IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 57 paragraph.Thus,theonusshiftedupontherevenuetodisprovethecontentionof theassesseebasedonthetangiblematerials.ButwenotethatthelearnedDRhas notbroughtanyiotaofevidencesuggestingthattheamountofcashdepositwas notoutofthecashwithdrawalfromthebank.Likewise,therewasnoinformation thattheassesseehasspentthecashwithdrawalsomewhereelsetowardsthe capitalorrevenueexpenses.Atthisjuncture,wealsofindpertinenttoreferthe orderofthistribunalincaseofSudhirbhaiPravinkantThakervs.ITOreportedin 88taxmann.com382,whereinsimilarfactsandcircumstancesitwasheldas under: 4.Wehaveheardtherivalsubmissions,perusedthematerialavailableonrecordandgone throughtheordersoftheauthoritiesbelowaswellasthejudgementsrelieduponbytheld. counselfortheassessee.Thereisnodisputewithregardtothefactthattheassesseehad depositedthecashofRs.11,27,800/-startingfrom07/06/2007to31/02/2008.Thecash withdrawnfromthebankwasofRs.4,20,000/-on01/07/2006,Rs.4,90,000/-on 06/07/2006,Rs.83,000/-on26/06/2007,Rs.51,000/-on20/11/2007,Rs.1,28,000/-on 14/12/2007andRs.2,00,000/-on07/01/2008.However,thecashwasdepositedon 07/06/2007ofRs.2lacs,on08/06/2007ofRs.2lacs,on11/06/2007ofRs.1,50,000/-,on 12/06/2007ofRs.2lacs,on13/06/2007ofRs.2,25,000/-.Thetotaldepositstill 13/06/2007wasofRs.9,75,000/-andtheamountwithdrawntill06/07/2006wasof Rs.9,10,000/-(Rs.4,20,000+4,90,000).Restofthedepositsofthetotaladditionwere madeon18/06/2007,26/06/2007and13/02/2008.However,withdrawalafter06/07/2006, theassesseehadwithdrawnon26/06/2007ofRs.83,000/-,on20/11/2007ofrs.51,000/-, on14/12/2007ofRs.1,28,000/-andon07/01/2008ofRs.2,00,000/-.From20/11/2011to 07/01/2008theassesseehadwithdrawntotalamountofRs.3,79,000/-.However,cash wasdepositedinthebankaccountafter13/06/2007ofRs.1,52,800/-.Sofarasthe amountofRs.83,000/-isconcerned,i.e.matchingfromwithdrawalsanddepositsandrest oftheamount,thereisagapbetweenwithdrawalsanddepositsoftheamount.Inrespect ofdepositmadeon13/02/2008isalsowithinonemonthfromthewithdrawalofamount on07/01/2008.Inrespectofotherentries,thecashwithdrawalisevenbeforeoneyearof depositoftheamount.Thecontentionoftheassesseeisthattheamountwaskeptas cashinhand.Theauthoritieshavedoubtedabouttheexplanationfurnishedbythe assessee.Theauthoritiesbelowhavedoubtedthesourceofthecashdeposits,however, thecontentionoftheld.counselfortheassesseeisthathehadwithdrawntheamount fromhisbankaccountandthereisnofindingbytheauthoritiesbelowthatthecash withdrawnbytheassesseewasutilizedforanyotherpurpose.Intheabsenceofsuch finding,additionisnotjustified.Wefindmeritintothecontentionoftheld.counselforthe assesseethatthereisnodisputethattheamountwhichwaswithdrawnbytheassessee onvariousdatesduringtheyear2006wasavailablewithhimformakingdeposits.Inthe absenceoffindingthattheamountwhichwaspreviouslywithdrawnbytheassesseehad beenutilizedforanyotherpurposemerelyonthebasisofconjecturethattheamount mighthavebeenutilizedforanyotherpurposeandwasnotavailablewiththeassesseefor makingthedeposits,weareunabletoacceptthereasoningoftheauthoritiesbelow.In ourconsideredview,whentheassesseehasdemonstratedthathehadwithdrawncash fromthebankandthereisnofindingbytheauthoritiesbelowthatthiscashavailablewith theassesseewasinvestedorutilizedforanyotherpurpose,inthatevent,itisnotopento theauthoritytomaketheadditiononthebasisthattheassesseefailedtoexplainthe sourceofdeposits.Moreover,theauthoritiesbelowhavenotdisputedthefactthatthe assesseehadwithdrawnamountofRs.9,10,000/-beforethedepositsmadeonvarious IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 58 datesduringtheFY2007-08.Therefore,theordersoftheauthoritiesbelowaresetaside andtheAOisdirectedtodeletetheaddition.Thus,groundraisedintheassessee'sappeal isallowed. 104.5Inviewoftheabove,therecannotbeanyadditiontothetotalincomeof theassesseeonaccountofcashdepositedinthebankunlesstherevenue demonstratesthattheamountinquestionhasbeenusedbytheassesseeforany otherpurpose.Thus,inourconsideredviewtheadditiononaccountofcash depositinthebankisbasedonassumptionandpresumptionswhichisbadinlaw. 104.6Onceithasbeenheldbyusthattheassesseewashavingsufficientcashin handoutcashwithdrawalthenthesourcesofcapitalcontributionincashtothe partnershipfirmalsogotestablished.Assuchtherewasopeningcashinhand 35,88,000/-,cashreceiptduringtheyearofRs.20lakhandcashwithdrawalfrom thebankduringtheyearwasRs.1,80,05,000/-only.Allthiscashwassufficient formakingdepositinbankforRs2,19,84,000/-andcashinvestmentinfirmforRs. 10,75,000/-only. 104.7Accordingly,wedonotfindanyinfirmityintheorderofthelearnedCIT(A). Thus,wedirecttheAOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhim.Hencethegroundof appealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. 105.ThelastissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.2,23,32,374/-madeundersection68oftheActon accountofunsecuredloan. 106.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissuesraisedbytheRevenueinitsgrounds ofappealfortheAY2010-11isidenticaltotheissueraisedbytheRevenuein IT(SS)ANo.327/AHD/2018fortheassessmentyear2009-10.Therefore,the findingsgiveninIT(SS)ANo.327/AHD/2018shallalsobeapplicableforthe assessmentyears2010-11.TheappealoftheRevenuefortheA.Y.2009-10has beendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.85ofthisorderagainsttheRevenue.The IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 59 learnedARandtheDRalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsforthe assessmentyear2009-10shallalsobeappliedfortheassessmentyears2010-11. Hence,thegroundofappealfiledbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 107.IntheresultappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoCO.No.131/Ahd/2019inIT(SS)ANo.326/AHD/2018bythe assesseeforassessmentyear2010-11. 108.Attheoutset,wenotethattheassesseeintheCOfiledbyithassupported theorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparateadjudicationis requiredfortheCOfiledbytheassessee.Hence,wedismissthesameas Infructuous. 108.1Intheresult,theCOoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)A297/AHD/2018appealbytheassessee, DharmenbhaiMahendrabhaiSutariaforA.Y.2011-12 109.TheonlyissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin notconsideringthejudgmentoftheHon’bleHighcourtofGujaratinthecaseof SaumyaConstructionPvtLtd.387ITR529. 110.Thenecessaryfactsarethatinconsequencetosearchproceedingunder section132oftheActatbartergroupdated04-12-2014towhichtheassessee wasaparty,theproceedingundersection153AoftheActwasinitiatedagainst theassessee.Intheassessmentorderfinalizedundersection143(3)r.w.s.153A oftheAct,theAObesidesmakingotheradditionmadeanadditionofRs. 73,03,000/-onaccountofunsecuredloanfromM/sSaralManagementand Consultancy.TheassesseechallengedtheadditionmadebytheAOonmeritas wellontechnicalgrounds.Assuchtheassesseeontechnicalgroundssubmitted IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 60 thattherewasnoincriminatingmaterialinrelationtotheunsecuredloanfound duringthesearch.Therefore,consideringtheprincipleslaiddownbytheHon’ble GujaratHighCourtinthecaseofPCITvs.SaumyaConstructionPvtLtd.reported in387ITR529,noadditioncanbemadeintheabsenceofincriminatingmaterial. 111.ThelearnedCIT(A)allowedtheappealoftheassesseeonmerit.However, ontechnicalground,itwasheldthattheprinciplelaiddowninthecaseofPCITvs. SaumyaConstructionPvtLtd.(supra)cannotbeappliedingivenfacts.The relevantfindingofthelearnedCIT(A)inthisregardreadsasunder: Theappellant'sargumentsareintwofold.Firstlyonthebasisofthelegalcontentionthat duringthecourseofsearchproceedings,noincriminatingmaterialasregardstoloan receivedfromtheaforesaidpartywerefoundandseized.Therefore,theadditionmadeby theAOinrespectofloanreceivedduringtheyearu/s.68oftheActwhileframingthe assessmentorder.u/s143(3)r.ws.153A(1)(b)oftheActinabsenceofanyincriminating seizedmaterialfound.Itisalsosubmittedthatsection153CoftheActdoesnotlaydown anydifferentprocedurethanprovidedu/s.153Aandinabsenceofanyincriminating material,noadditioncanbemadewhilemakingassessmentu/s.153A/153C.The appellantrelieduponthedecisionofHon'blejurisdictionalGujaratHighCourtinthecase ofPr.CIT-4vs.SaumyaConstructionPvt.Ltd[2017]529,otherHighCourtsandHon'ble AhmedabadTribunalaswellasotherTribunalsinhiswrittensubmissionfiledduringthe courseofappealhearing.Butthecontentionoftheappellantisnotfoundacceptablefor thisassessmentyear,asincriminatingdocumentfortheperiodfrom2.4.2010to27.4.2010 wasfound,whichpertaintothisassessmentyear.Hence,thiscontentionoftheappellant isfoundfactuallyincorrect,thusdismissed 112.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A)theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. 112.1ThelearnedARbeforeuscontendedthattherewasnodocumentof incriminatingnaturefoundduringthecourseofsearchandseizureoperationand thereforenoadditionintheabsenceofincriminatingdocumentscanbemadein thehandsoftheassessee. 112.2Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelow. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 61 113.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Thelimitedissuebeforeusisregardingthe applicabilityoftheprincipleslaiddownbytheHon’blejurisdictionalHighCourtof GujaratinthecaseofPCITvs.SaumyaConstructionPvtLtd.(supra)inthecase ofthepresentassessee.TheHon’bleHighCourtinthecasementionedabovehas heldthatincaseofassessmentproceedinginitiatedinconsequenceofsearch proceedingsandtheregularassessmentforthatyearhasalreadybeen completed/unabated,thennoincomecanbeassessedintheabsenceof incriminatingmaterialsfoundfromtheassessee.TheviewtakenbytheHon’ble HighCourthasbeenfollowedbyuswhiledecidingtheidenticalissueraisedbythe RevenueinIT(SS)317/AHD/2018videparagraphNo.19ofthisorder. 113.1Nowcomingtocaseofthepresentassessee,thelearnedCIT(A)heldthat therewereincriminatingmaterialsfortheperiodfrom2-04-2010to27-08-2010 foundduringsearch.However,wefindthatthematerialreferredbythelearned CIT(A)isanexcelsheetfoundfromthepremisesofShriAnilHiralalShahand AshitVohrawhowerealsopartofgroup.Theimpugnedsheetcontainedthe informationinrelationtounaccountedcashreceiptconcerningofthegroup namelySarthavInfrastructurePrivateLimitedandlayeringofsuchcashintobank accountofdifferentindividualandgroupconcern.Thus,impugnedincriminating materialreferredtobythelearnedCIT(A)wasneitherfoundfromthepresent assesseenorinconnectionwithreceiptofunsecuredloanbythepresentassessee fromM/sSaralManagementandConsultancy. 113.2Inviewoftheaboveweareoftheconsideredopinionthatnoincriminating foundinrelation/connectiontounsecuredloantransactionshownbytheassessee. Therefore,theprinciplelaiddownbytheHon’bleGujratHighCourtinthecaseof PCITvs.SaumyaConstructionPvtLtd.(supra)issquarelyapplicabletothefacts ofthepresentassessee.Hence,thegroundofappealraisedbytheassesseeis herebyallowed. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 62 114.Intheresult,appealoftheassesseeisherebyallowed. ComingtoIT(SS)No328/Ahd/2018bytheRevenueincaseofassessee namelyDharmenbhaiMahendrabhaiSutariaforA.Y.2012-13. 115.Atthetimeofhearing,itwassubmittedbytheLd.ARfortheassesseethat theappealfiledbytheRevenueishitbyrecentlyissuedCBDTCircularNo.17of 2019dated08/08/2019revisingthepreviousthresholdspertainingtotaxeffects. ItisinteralianoticedthattheCBDTvideInstructionNo.F.No.279/Misc/M- 93/2018-ITJdt.20/08/2019hasobservedthatCircularNo.17/2019dated 08/08/2019relatingtoenhancementofmonetarylimitsisalsoapplicabletoall pendingappeals.AspertheaforesaidCircularreadwithinstruction,allpending appealsfiledbyRevenueareliabletobedismissedasameasureforreducing litigationwherethetaxeffectdoesnotexceedtheprescribedmonetarylimit whichisnowrevisedatRs.50Lakhs.Intheinstantcase,thetaxeffectonthe disputedissuesraisedbytheRevenueisstatedtobenotexceedingRs.50lakhs andthereforeappealoftheRevenueisrequiredtobedismissedinlimine. 115.1TheLearnedDRfortheRevenuefairlyadmittedtheapplicabilityofthe CBDTCircularNo.17of2019.Accordingly,theappealoftheRevenueis dismissedasnotmaintainable.However,itwillbeopentoRevenuetoseek restorationofitsappealshowingtheinapplicabilityoftheaforesaidCBDTCircular inanymanneraspertheprovisionsoflaw. 115.2Intheresult,theappealoftheRevenueisdismissed. ComingtoCONo.149/Ahd/2019inIT(SS)ANo.328/AHD/2018bythe assesseeforassessmentyear2012-13. 116.Attheoutset,wenotethattheassesseeintheCOfiledbyithassupported theorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparateadjudicationis IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 63 requiredfortheCOfiledbytheassessee.Hence,wedismissthesameas Infructuous. 116.1Intheresult,theCOoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No307/Ahd/2018bytheRevenueincaseofassessee namelyDharmenbhaiMahendrabhaiSutariaforA.Y.2014-15. 117.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.5,00,000/-madebytheAOas unexplainedcashdepositinvariousbankaccountsu/s69oftheAct. 2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.2,97,72,056/-asunsecuredloansu/s68 oftheAct 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.4,61,564/-onaccountofunaccounted interestinForm26AS. 4.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)oughtto haveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 5.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatoftheA.O. berestoredtotheaboveextent. 118.ThefirstissueraisedbytherevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.5lakhmadeonaccountofcashdeposit. 119.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissueraisedbytheRevenueinitsgrounds ofappealfortheAY2014-15isidenticaltotheissueraisedbytheRevenuein IT(SS)ANo.326/AHD/2018fortheassessmentyear2010-11.Therefore,the findingsgiveninIT(SS)ANo.326/AHD/2018shallalsobeapplicableforthe assessmentyears2014-15.TheappealoftheRevenuefortheAY2010-11has beendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.104ofthisorderagainsttheRevenue.The learnedARandtheDRalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsforthe IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 64 assessmentyear2010-11shallalsobeappliedfortheassessmentyears2014-15. Hence,thegroundofappealfiledbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 120.ThenextissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.2,97,72,056/-madebytheAOundersection68ofthe accountofunexplainedunsecuredloan. 121.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissuesraisedbytheRevenueinitsgrounds ofappealfortheAY2014-15isidenticaltotheissueraisedbytheRevenuein IT(SS)ANo.327/AHD/2018fortheassessmentyear2009-10.Therefore,the findingsgiveninIT(SS)ANo.327/AHD/2018shallalsobeapplicableforthe assessmentyears2014-15.TheappealoftheRevenuefortheA.Y.2009-10has beendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.85ofthisorderagainsttheRevenue.The learnedARandtheDRalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsforthe assessmentyear2009-10shallalsobeappliedfortheassessmentyear2014-15. Hence,thegroundofappealfiledbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 122.ThelastissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.4,61,564/-beinginterestincomeasperform26-AS. 123.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedingfoundthatasperForm-26ASthe assesseeearnedinterestincomeofRs.4,61,564/-fromNutanNagrikCo.Op.Bank butthesamewasnotofferedtotax.Thus,theAOaddedthesametothetotal incomeoftheassessee. 124.Onappealbytheassessee,thelearnedCIT(A)foundthatnoincomebeing interestfromNutanNagrikCo.Op.Bankwasearnedbyhim(theassessee).As such,theForm-26ASwasalsonotreflectinganysuchinterestincome.Hencethe learnedCIT(A)deletedtheadditionmadetheAO. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 65 125.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 125.1BoththelearnedDRandthelearnedARsupportedthefindingofthe authoritiesbelowtotheextentfavourabletothem. 126.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Attheoutset,wenotethattheAOallegedthatthe assesseehasnotincludedtheinterestincomeofRs.4,61,564/-fromNutanNagrik Co.Op.Bankinthecomputationofincomewhereastheassesseebeforethe learnedCIT-AcontendedthathehasnotearnedanyinterestincomefromNutan NagrikCo.Op.Bank.Theclaimoftheassesseehasbeenfoundcorrectbythe learnedCIT-A.ThelearnedDRbeforeushasnotbroughtanymaterialcontraryto thefindingofthelearnedCIT-A.Therefore,weherebyupholdthefindingof learnedCIT(A)anddirecttheAOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhim.Hence,the groundofappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. 127.IntheresultappealfiledbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoCONo.130/Ahd/2019inIT(SS)ANo.307/AHD/2018bythe assesseeforassessmentyear2014-15. 128.Attheoutset,wenotethattheassesseeintheCOfiledbyithassupported theorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparateadjudicationis requiredfortheCOfiledbytheassessee.Hence,wedismissthesameas Infructuous. 128.1Intheresult,theCOoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.541/Ahd/2019bytheRevenueincaseofassessee namelyDharmenbhaiMahendrabhaiSutariaforA.Y.2015-16. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 66 129.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: ChallengingthevalidityoforderquashedbyLd.CIT(A)passedu/s.143(3)r.w.s153B(1)(b) r.w.s144oftheAct.] 1.TheLd.A.Oaspassedthisorderundersection144oftheActwhilemakingan observationthatappellanthasnotfiledanyreply.Inthisregardtheappellantwouldliketo submitthatappellanthaddulycompliedwiththefollowingnoticesu/s.142(1)oftheAct issuedbytheLd.A.Oandtheirsubmissiondatesareherebytabulatedasunder: Dateof notice DateofletterDateofsubmission 09.12.201621.12.201628.12.2016 13.12.201621.12.201626.12.2016 22.12.201623.12.201626.12.2016 24.12.201626.12.2016 26.12.201628.12.2016 26.12.201628.12.2016 26.12.201626.12.2016 2.TheappellanthadalsomaderequesttotheLd.A.Otoconsiderthattheappellant financialcrisisisagenuinereasonfornonfilingofreturnofincomeforAY2015-16.There wasnomalafideintentiononthepartofappellantinnotfilingthereturnofincome. Howevertheappellanthadfiledthereturnofincomeu/s139(4)oftheActon30/03/2017 declaringincomeRs47,02,590/-andtaxesandinterestdulypaidthereon. 3.ThattheBestJudgmentAssessmentshouldbereasonedandjudiciousorderandnotin awaytheAOhasframedtheassessmentorderforA.Y.2015-16,beingunrealistic assessmentinmakingbestjudgmentassessmenttheAssessingOfficerdoesnotpossess absolutelyarbitraryauthoritytoguessatanyfigurehelikesandthatalthoughheisnot boundbystrictjudicialprinciplesheshouldbeguidedbyrulesofjusticeequityandgood conscience.Relianceisplacedonthefollowingdecisions i.AbdulQayumandCo.vs.CIT(1993)1ITR375378 ii.JotRamSherSinghvs.CIT(1974)2ITR129(All) iii.GundaSubbayyavs.CIT(1939)7ITR21 iv.CommissionerofIncomeTaxvs.PopularElectricCo.Pvt.Ltd.2131TR631(Cal.) Hence,theL.d.CIT(A)hasrignthlyquashedtheorderpassedu/s.143(3)r.w.s153B(1)(b) r.w.s144oftheAct. GROUNDNO.II-ADDITIONU/S.68OFTHEACTONACCOUNTOFUNSECUREDLOANSOF RS.1,64,45,000/- That2groundsareraisedbeforeHon'bleITATforthesaidadditionwhichareasunder. a.Theassessehasnotdischargedtheburden68oftheActbyfurnishingthecopyofITR, ledgeraccountandbankstatementtoverifythecreditworthinessandgenuinenessofloan transaction b.AdmissionofAdditionalEvidenceproducedbytheAppellantinrespectofUnsecured LoanwithoutfollowingtheprocedureprescribedinRule46A. 1.Forthegroundsoraised,itissubmittedthattheappellantduringthecourseof assessmentproceedingsvidesubmissiondated21.12.2016(ReferPageNo,24ofPaper Book)hadsubmittedthedetailsofunsecuredloanalongwithsupportingevidences.The IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 67 appellantwiththesubmissiondated21.12.2016hadsubmittedthecopyofBank StatementandreturnofincomeofShreyasiHence,theallegationssomadeintheare baselessandillogical 2.TheLd.A.Ointheassessmentorderhasmadetheadditioninrespectofunexplained loanduringtheyearu/s.68oftheActforanaggregateamountofRs.2,53,19,733/and thebreak-upofthesamei.e.nameofthepartyandamountareasunder- Sr. No. NameofEntityPANAmount IShreyasiSutariaAWOPS1881R1,64,45,000 Total1,64,45,000/- 3.ThatinrespectofShreyasiSutaria,therewasopeningdebitbalanceofRs. 1,48,57,600/-,furtherfundsforanamountofRs.1,64,45,000/-hasbeenreceivedduring theyearunderconsiderationi.e.AY2015-16,repaymentofRs.4,36,000/-hadbeenmade. Thataccordingtoprovisionsofsection68oftheActtheappellanthastosatisfythelitmus testinordertoprovetheidentity,creditworthinessandgenuinenessofthelenderparty. 4.Theassesseeduringthecourseofassessmentproceedingshadalreadysatisfiedthe litmustestasmentionedinsection68oftheActbysubmittingthecopyofbank statementsaswellasITRofthesaidlenderparty.Thecopyofunsecuredloanchart containingthepagenumberofpaperbookofrelevantsubmitteddocumentsisattached herewithasperExhibit-I. Thattheappellantduringthecourseappellateproceedingshadonlysubmittedacopyof confirmationfrombooksofShreyasiSutaria.Itisalsopertinenttomentionthatthe identityofthelenderpartyShreyasiSutariaisdulyestablishedbeyonddoubtforthe reasonthattheLd.A.OwhowastheAssessingOfficeroftheappellantwasalsothe AssessingOfficerofShreyasiSutariaasthesaidentitywaspartofSarthavGroupandwas undertheassessmentproceedingsu/s153AoftheActbeforetheLd.A.Oandtherefore, thereturnofincome,bankstatementsandbooksofaccountsoftheaforesaidmentioned partywerealreadyonrecordoftheLd.A.O.So,econtraconfirmationsoplacedonrecord duringthecourseofappellateproceedingscannotbecalledaadditionalevidence. Hence,theL.d.CIT(A)hasrightlydeletedtheadditionmadeu/s.68oftheActonaccount ofunsecuredloan. Further,foryourhonour'sperusaltheappellantwouldliketosubmitacopyofchart attachedherewithasperExhibit-IlwhereintherelevantparaofA.O.'sorderandL.d. CIT(A)'sorderarementioned. 130.ThefirstissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin quashingtheassessmentorderpassedundersection143(3)r.w.s.153B(1)(b) r.w.s.144oftheAct. 131.Thenecessaryfactsarethatduringtheyearunderconsideration,asearch proceedingundersection132oftheActdated4 th December2014wascarriedat theassesseeandinconsequencetosuchsearch,assessmentproceedingunder IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 68 section153B(1)(b)oftheActwasinitiated.TheAOduringtheassessment proceedingfoundthattheassesseehasnotfiledthereturnundersection139(1) oftheActandalsonotfurnishedtherequireddetailsexceptforveryfewdetails providedvideletterdated21-12-2016.Therefore,theAO,intheabsenceof necessarydetailsfinalizedtheassessmentundersection144r.w.s.143(3)r.w.s 153B(1)(b)oftheActandassessedtheincomeoftheassesseeatRs. 1,89,80,280/-videorderdated30-12-2016. 132.AggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A)and challengedthevalidityoftheassessmentorder.Theassesseebeforethelearned CIT(A)submittedthatreturnofincomeundersection139(1)oftheActaswellas inresponsetonoticeundersection142(1)oftheActwasnotfiledduetoreason thathewasfacingfinancialstringencyandtherenofundavailablewithhimfor paymentoftaxes.Howeveroncefundwasarranged,hefiledreturnundersection 139(4)dated31 st March2017(afterassessment)whereindeclaredincomeatRs. 47,02,590/-includingadditionalincomeofRs.10lakhalongwithpaymentofdue taxesandinterestthereon.Thegenuinehardshipofarrangementoffinancewas alsoexplainedtotheAO,thereforethefindingofAOthatreturnwasnotfiled despiteissuingnoticeisnotfullycorrect.TheAOfurthernotedthatnorequired detailwasfurnishedisalsofactuallyincorrectassuchseveralsubmissionswere madeinresponsetothenoticesissuedundersection142(1)oftheAct. 132.1Further,thebestjudgmentassessmentundersection144oftheActshould areasonedorderandrequiredtomadewithjudiciousapproachwhereastheAO passedtheassessmentorderinunrealisticmanner.Accordingly,theassessee contendedthattheassessmentorderpassedneedstoquashedbeinginvalid. 132.2ThelearnedCIT(A)afterconsideringthefactsintotalityquashedthe assessmentorderbyobservingasunder: Oncarefulconsiderationofthefactsofthecase,itisnoticedthattheAOhaspassedorder undersection143(3)r.w.s.153B(1)(b)r.ws.144oftheIT.Act,1961dated30.12.2016by statingthattheassesseehasnotfurnishedthedetailsaftermanyopportunitiesgiven IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 69 exceptveryfewdetailsfiledon21.12.2016,theassessmentforAY.2015-16inthiscaseis finalizedu/s144oftheActonthematerialavailableonrecordTheappellanthasalsofiled variousrepliesbeforetheAOintheassessmentproceedingsasperthetablereproduced hereinabove.InthecaseofStateofKeralavs.C.Velukutty(1966)60ITR239(SC),ithas beenobservedthatlimitsofpowersareimplicitintheexpression"bestofhisjudgment". Judgmentisafacultytomatterswithwisdomtrulyandlegally.Judgmentdoesnotdepend uponarbitrarycapriceofajudge,butonsettledandinvariableprinciplesofjusticeand thoughthereisanelementofguessworkina"bestjudgment"assessment,itshallnotbe awildonebutshallhaveareasonablenexustotheavailablematerialandthe circumstancesofeachcase.Therefore,keepinginviewtheaforesaidfactsandbinding judgments,theAOisnotjustifiedinpassingtheorderu/s.143(3)r.w.s.153B(1)(b)r.w.s. 144oftheActandhence,thesameisquashed 133.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A)theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 133.1ThelearnedDRbeforeussubmittedthatatthetimeofassessmentthe assesseehadnotfiledthereturnofincomewhichistheprimarydocumentand thereforetheAOhadnooptionexcepttoframetheassessmentundersection144 oftheAct. 133.2Onthecontrary,thelearnedARbeforeusclaimedthatallthenecessary detailswerefurnishedbytheassesseenarratingallthefacts.Therewasfinancial difficultyfortheassesseeandthereforethereturnwasnotfiledontime.Ona laterdatethereturnwasfiledalongwiththetax.Furthermore,whatevernotices wereissuedbytheAO,therepliesweremadebytheassesseeintheassessment proceedings. 133.3BoththelearnedDRandARbeforeusvehementlysupportedtheorderof theauthoritiesbelowasfavourabletothem. 134.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Attheoutset,wenotethatthegroundraisedbythe revenueonmeritagainstthedeletionoftheadditionmadebythelearnedCIT(A) for₹1,64,45,000/-undertheprovisionsofsection68oftheActhasalreadybeen decidedbyusagainsttherevenueandinfavouroftheassesseevideparagraph IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 70 number139ofthisorder.Assuchtherevenuelostitscaseonmeritandtherefore, weareinclinedtorefrainourselvesfromdecidingtheissueraisedbytherevenue onthetechnicalgroundasdiscussedabove.Assuchthetechnicalgroundraised bytheRevenueinthegivenfactsandcircumstancesbecomesinfructuousand thereforenoseparateadjudicationisrequired.Hencethegroundofappealraised bytheRevenueisherebydismissedasinfructuous. 135.ThenextissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.1,64,45,000/-madeundersection68oftheActof accountofcreditofunsecuredloan. 136.TheassesseeduringtheyearreceivedanunsecuredloanofRs. 1,64,45,000/-fromSmt.ShreyashibenSutariawhichwastreatedasunexplained creditundersection68oftheActbytheAOandaddedthesametothetotal income. 137.OnappealbytheassesseethelearnedCIT(A)deletedtheadditionmadeby theAObyobservingasunder: Theappellantintheappellateproceedingsinitswrittensubmissionfiledon13.08.2018 hasgiventhechartshowingbreak-upasregardstounsecuredloanpartywithnecessary supportingdetailsofunsecuredloanpartyasperExhibit-ll.Theappellanthasstatedthat theunsecuredloanfromtheaforesaidpartywasbyaccountpayeechequesthrough regularbankingtransactionsanddulyreflectedinthebankaccountoftheappellantas wellasinthebooksofaccountsoftheappellantTheappellanthasalsosubmitteddetailed submissionbeforetheAOvideletterdated10.10.2016duringthecourseofproceedingsin responsetonoticeissuedu/s.142(1)oftheActdated10.10.2016.Intheassessment proceedings,theappellanthasalreadydischargedtheburdencasteduponhimu/s.68of theAct Inrespectofidentificationofdepositor,genuinenessofthetransactionand creditworthinessofthedepositorbyplacingonrecordtheITRandcopyofBank StatementsofShreyasiSutariavidesubmissiondated19.12.2016,thecopyofwhichhas beencompiledatPageNo.1072to1076ofPaperBook-VII.Besidestheaforesaiddetails, theappellanthasalsosubmittedthecopyofledgeraccountandcontraconfirmationasper Exhibit-Illofhissubmissionfiledon13.08.2018toprovethegenuinenessofthe transaction.TheappellanthasrelieduponthedecisionofITOVs.ShantiEnterprise[2016] 71taxmann.com275.Theappellantfurthercontendedthatitisnecessaryfortheappellant firmtoproveprima-faciethetransactionwhichresultsinitsbooksofaccountsSuchproof includesproofofidentityofitslenders,thecapacityofsuchlendertoadvancethemoney IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 71 andgenuinenessofthetransactions.Inthepresentcase,astheappellantfirmhasadduced evidencestoestablishprimafacietheaforesaidonusshiftstothedepartmentinsupportof thesametheappellantfirmhasplacedrelianceonthefollowingdecisions: 1)VinodKumarBhandarivs.ACIT[2003]174Taxation49(Del.Trib.)ACIT(Investigation) vs.ShreeRamHardCoke&AlliedIndustries[2003]1MTC780(ITATLucknow] CITv.OrissaCorpn.(P)Ltd[1986]159ITR78(SC).AcchayalalShawITO[2009]30SOT 44(Kol.ITAT)iv) DCITvs.RohiniBuilders256ITR360(Guj.) CITvs.RanchhodJivabhaiNakhava(TaxAppealNo.50of2011) vi) vii)CITvs.ApexThermPackaging(P)Ltd[2014]42taxmann.com473(Guj.) viii)CITvs.RamniklalHirji[2014]41taxmann.com493/222taxman15(Mag.) (Guj.HC) ix)CITvs.ShaileshKumarRasiklalMehta[2014]41taxmann.com550/224taxman212 (Mag.)(Guj.) x)CITvs.JaiKumarBakliwal[2014]366ITR217(Raj.HC) xi)LabhChandraBohravs.ITO[2014]219CTR571(Raj.HC)xii)AravallTradingCo.vs. ITO8DTR199(Raj). ItwasfurthercontendedbytheappellantthatinrespectofShreyasiSutario,amountofRs. 1,64,45,000/-hasbeenreceivedduringtheyearunderconsiderationasrepaymentof advances,theidentityofthesaidpartyisdulyestablishedbeyonddoubtforthereason thattheAOwastheAssessingOfficerofappellantandofShreyasiSutariaofSarthavGroup andwasundertheassessmentproceedingsu/s143(3)r.w.s.153CoftheActbeforethe AO.Thus,thereturnofincomeshowingtotalincomeofRs.15,35,280/-oftheaforesaid partyandthebankstatementsofthesaidpartywerealreadyavailableontherecordof theAO.TheappellanthasalsoplacedonrecordoftheAOthebankstatementsto establishthatthetransactionbeingtakenplacethroughproperbankingchannelandalso thecopyofITRofsaidlenderparty,thecopyofwhichwerecompiledatPageNo.1072to 1076ofthePaperBookNo.VIITherefore,theidentityofthedepositor,genuinenessof thetransactionsandcreditworthinessofthedepositoraspersection68oftheActhas beendischargedbytheappellantaswellasalltheassessmentrecordsofShreyasiSutaria werealreadyavailableontherecordoftheAOintheformofIncomeTaxreturnandbank statementstoexaminethegenuinenessoftheloanTheappellantcontendedthatthe observationoftheAOintheassessmentorderthattheonusoftheassesseetoprovethe genuinenessofsuchloansanditisestablishedthattheassesseefailedtoprovethe creditworthinessandgenuinenessofsuchadditionintheexistingloanisfactuallyincorrect astheAOalsobeingtheAssessingOfficerofShreyasiSutariaandallthedetailswere alreadyavailableontherecordoftheAOandPANandreturnofincomeofShreyasiSutaria soastoestablishtheidentityand/orgenuinenessofthetransactionwasnotaquestion sinceitwascrossverifiablefromtherecordsavailablewiththerecordsavailablewiththe AOastheAOonPage19oftheAssessmentorderinthecaseofSarthavInfrastructurePvt. Ltd,giventhedetailsofreturnofincomefiledbyShreyasiSutariaforAY2009-10to2015- 16establishingthefactthattheAOhadtheaccesstoboththePANandreturnofincome IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 72 foralltheyearsoftheallegedpartysoastosaytheidentifygenuinenessofthe transactionswasnotatquestionasitwascrossverifiablefromtherecordsavailablewith theAO.Theappellanthasalreadyprovedthecreditworthinessandgenuinenessofthe lenderpartybysubmittingvariousdetailsasstatedhereinaboveandhence,anadditionof Rs.1,64,45,000/-isnotrequiredtobemadeinthecaseoftheappellant.Thisestablishes thatthetransactionshavebeenmadethroughproperbankingchannel. So,theadditionofRs.1,64,45,000/-madebytheAOwithrespecttotheunsecuredloanof ShreyashiSutiainunjustifiedandtheadditionisdelete.Thisgroundofappealisallowed. 138.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A)theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 138.1BoththelearnedDRandtheARbeforeusvehementlysupportedthe orderoftheauthoritiesbelowasfavourabletothem. 139.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedlyduringtheyearunderconsideration,the booksoftheaccountoftheassesseehavebeencreditedbytheunsecuredloan. Theprovisionofsection68oftheActfastenstheliabilityontheassesseetomake properandreasonableexplanationregardingthenatureandsourcesofsum creditedinthebookstothesatisfactionoftheAO.Theassesseeisliableto provideproofoftheidentityofthelenders/creditors,establishthegenuinenessof thetransactionsandcreditworthinessoftheparties. 139.1Inthecaseonhand,thebooksofaccountsoftheassesseewerecredited byunsecuredamountofloanfromoneSmt.ShareyashibenSutariawhowaspart ofthegroupandsubjecttotheproceedingundersection153CoftheActbefore thesameAOwhohasjurisdictionovertheassessee.Thus,heridentitycannotbe doubted. 139.2Comingtothenextaspectthatishercreditworthiness,inthisregardwe notethattheAOhimselffoundthatshehasbeenregularlyfilingreturnofincome andfortheA.Ys.2008-09to2014-15declaredasubstantialamountofincome. ThelearnedCIT(A)alsofoundthattheassesseeduringtheassessment IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 73 proceedingalsofurnishedthecopyofreturnofincomefortheyearunder considerationdisclosingsubstantialincome.Thus,theloanpartyi.e.Smt. ShreyashibenSutariahadsufficientcreditworthiness. 139.3Likewise,thetransactionwascarriedthroughbankingchannelwhichwas dulyrecordedinthebooksofaccountoftheassesseeandcounterpartywhich wasalsoestablishedbytheassesseeduringtheassessmentproceedingsby furnishingnecessarybankstatementofcounterparty. 139.4Thus,theassesseefurnishedtheprimaryevidencetoproveidentityofthe creditor,genuinenessoftransactionandcreditworthinessofthecreditor.Itisalso pertinenttomentionthattheAOwashavingaccesstoalltheotherdetailsofthe creditorparty.Theprovisionofsection68oftheActcastprimaryonusonthe assesseetoexplainnatureandsourcesofcreditinthebooksandoncethe assesseedischargedsuchonusbyfurnishingprimarydocumentsinrespectof identity,genuinenessandcreditworthiness,theonusshiftsontheAOtocarryout necessaryinquiryandbringcontrarymaterialonrecord.Inthepresentcase,the assesseehasdischargedprimaryonuscastuponhim.However,theAOwithout makingnecessaryverificationandbringingcontrarymaterialsonrecordproceeded totreatsuchcreditasunexplainedundersection68oftheAct.Therefore,inour consideredopinionthelearnedCIT(A)rightlydeletedtheadditionmadebytheAO. Hence,thegroundofappealraisedbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 140.IntheresultappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoCONo.25/Ahd/2022inIT(SS)ANo.541/AHD/2019bythe assesseeforassessmentyear2015-16. 141.Attheoutset,wenotethattheassesseeintheCOfiledbyithassupported theorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparateadjudicationis IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 74 requiredfortheCOfiledbytheassessee.Hence,wedismissthesameas Infructuous. 141.1Intheresult,theCOoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)A298/AHD/2018appealbytheassesseeDharmen MahendrabhaiSutaria-(HUF)forA.Y.2011-12 142.TheonlyissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin holdingthevalidityofissueofnoticeundersection153CoftheAct. 143.Attheoutset,wenotethatthelearnedARfortheassesseeatthetimeof hearingbeforeussubmittedthathehasbeeninstructedbytheassesseenotto presstheimpugnedgroundofappeal.Hence,theimpugnedgroundofappealof theassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. 143.1Intheresultappealoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.153/Ahd/2019bytheRevenueincaseofassessee namelyShriSanjayMahendrabhaiSutariaforA.Y.2010-11. 144.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsinnotappreciatingtheprovisionsofSection153AoftheI.T.Act,1961 whichrequiredthetotalincometobebroughtundertaxwithoutanyrestrictions. 2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsinholdingthatsuchassessmentorre-assessmentu/s.153AoftheI.T. Act,1961istoberestrictedonlytotheincriminatingmaterialfoundduringthesearch. 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserredin lawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.1,87,33,500/-onaccountofunexplained cashcredits. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 75 4.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserredin lawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.2,60,82,374/-onaccountofunsecured loansu/s.68oftheAct. 5.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserredin lawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.18,25,00,000/-onthebasisofseized material. 6.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)oughtto haveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 7.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatoftheA.O. berestoredtotheaboveextent. 145.ThefirstissueraisedbytherevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin holdingthattheassessmentorreassessmentundersection153AoftheActcan onlybemadebasedonincriminatingmaterialfoundduringthesearch. 146.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissueofassessmentorreassessmentunder section153AoftheActforunabated/completedassessmentyearbasedon incriminatingmaterialfoundduringthesearchproceedinghasbeensettledin favouroftheassesseebyvariousHon’bleHighCourtincludingthejurisdictional HighCourtincaseofSaumyaConstruction(supra).Wefurthernotethatthisissue hasalsobeenalsodecidedbyusinfavouroftheassesseevideparagraphno.19 ofthisorderwhileadjudicationtheappealoftheRevenueinIT(SS)ANo. 317/AHD/2018.Hencethegroundofappealoftherevenueisherebydismissed. 147.ThenextissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.1,87,33,374/-beingcashdepositsinthebankaccount. 148.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissueraisedbytheRevenueinitsgrounds ofappealfortheAY2010-11isidenticaltotheissueraisedbytheRevenuein IT(SS)ANo.326/AHD/2018incaseofassesseeShriDharmendraMSutariaforthe assessmentyear2010-11.Therefore,thefindingsgiveninIT(SS)ANo. 326/AHD/2018shallalsobeapplicableforissueraisedbytherevenueagainstthe currentassesseefortheassessmentyears2010-11.TheappealoftheRevenue IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 76 fortheA.Y.2010-11incaseofassesseenamelyShriDharmendraMSutariahas beendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.104ofthisorderagainsttheRevenue.The learnedDRandtheARalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsfortheissue raisedbytherevenueinthecaseofShriDharmendraMSutariaassessmentfor theyear2010-11shallalsobeappliedforissueraisedbytherevenueincaseof currentassesseefortheassessmentyears2010-11.Hence,thegroundofappeal filedbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 149.ThenextissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.2,60,82,374/-beingunsecuredloantreatedas unexplainedcreditu/s68oftheAct. 150.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissuesraisedbytheRevenueinitsgrounds ofappealfortheAY2010-11incaseofcurrentassesseeisidenticaltotheissue raisedbytheRevenueinIT(SS)ANo.327/AHD/2018incaseofassesseeShri DharmendraMSutariafortheassessmentyear2009-10.Therefore,thefindings giveninIT(SS)ANo.327/AHD/2018shallalsobeapplicableforissueraisedbythe revenueagainstthecurrentassesseefortheassessmentyears2010-11.The appealoftheRevenuefortheA.Y.2009-10incaseofassesseenamelyShri DharmendraMSutariahasbeendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.85ofthisorder againsttheRevenue.ThelearnedARandtheDRalsoagreedthatwhateverwill bethefindingsfortheissueraisedbytherevenueinthecaseofShriDharmendra MSutariaassessmentfortheyear2010-11shallalsobeappliedforissueraisedby therevenueincaseofcurrentassesseefortheassessmentyears2010-11.Hence, thegroundofappealfiledbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 151.ThenextissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredon deletingtheadditionmadebytheAOforRs.18,25,00,000/-basedonseized materialsfoundduringsearch. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 77 152.ThenecessaryfactsarethatduringthesearchproceedingatBarterGroup certainloosesheetmarkedaspageNo.2and8ofannexureAS-1werefound fromtheresidenceofShriAshitVohra.Theimpugnedpagenumber2contained informationfortheloanofRs.25Lakhandlikewisepageno.8contained informationregardinganamountofRs.18croresbeingAdaniOldaccount.The AOfoundthattheassesseewasnotabletoprovetheloanamountofRs.25lakh andtransactionof18CrorebeingAdanioldaccount.Thus,theAOtreatedthe sameasunexplainedcashcreditu/s68oftheActandinvestmentundersection 69oftheAct.Accordingly,theAOmadetheadditionofRs.18.25crorestothe totalincomeoftheassessee. 153.Onappealbytheassessee,thelearnedCIT(A)deletedtheadditionmade bytheAObyobservingasunder: 7.4.Thefactsofthecasehavebeenconsideredintotalitywithreferencetoseized documentsandcaselawscitedbytheappellant.Therearetwoadditionsmadeonthe basisofseizeddocumentwhichhasbeenmadepartoftheassessmentorderbytheAOby scanningthesameandplacedatpageNo.5oftheassessmentorder.Uppersideofthe page(rightside)contain"25000-00SanjaybhaUchina16.11.09".Onthebasisofthis noting,theAOheldthattheappellanthastakenloanofRs.25lakhandsameisnotshown inbooksofaccounts,itwasaddedtothereturnedincome.Firstofall,beforediscussing thenotingsonpaper,itisimportanttomentionthattheADhimselfheldthatthisamount isloantakenbytheappellantandmadeadditions.Theamountofloantakencannotbe consideredincomeoftheassessee,asitisliabilityandnotanasset.Therefore,findingsof theAOisnotsustainablefromaccountingpointofviewitisclearthatthisamounthas beenshownintherightsideofthepageandleftsideofthepagecontaining25000-00 11.11.09AMD-chequenoentryJoyThisseemscashbookRs25lakhleftsideisreceipt andthesameamountwasgiventoSanjaybhaiasloan(uchina).Thus,itcannotbe consideredasincomeoftheappellant,asitisliabilityandnottheassetoftheappellant. Moreover,thispagewasnotfoundatthepremiseoftheappellant,notinthehandwritings oftheappellantandnotsignedbytheappellant.ItisalsonotcertainwhoisSanjaybhai, asSanjayiscommonname.ThispagewasfoundatthepremisesofShriAsitVora,whose statementhasnotbeenrecordedonthisissueduringthecourseofsearch,duringpost searchenquiriesandduringassessmentproceedings:Presumptionofsection292Cofthe Actisnotagainsttheappellant,beingthirdparty.inthiscaseInsuchcircumstances,there isnoconcreteevidencetoprovethatthenameSanjaywrittenonthispageisthenameof theappellant.Keepinginviewthefactualposition,asstatedaboveandvariouscaselaws citeduponbytheappellant,asreproducedaboveinthesubmission,additionsofRs.25 lakhmadebytheAOarenotsustainable,hence,thesearedeleted. 7.5Thelowerpartofthepagecontaining"AdanioldA/c18-00".Otherjottingsare"CR. 15-32AgpropertyA/cnew,3.65chuplakA/cnew(25oganacA/c),1.15new,Aryankaka omaj/382,MulsanetownshipA/c,8.00newinMarch,CharmiRajshahetc.Butnameofthe appellantisnowherewrittenonthispage.Thispagewasalsofoundfromthepremisesof ShriAsitVoraandnotfromtheappellant'spremisesHence,presumptionu/s,292Cofthe Actisnotapplicableagainsttheappellant.Itisnotinthehandwritingoftheappellant.Itis IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 78 notsignedbytheappellant.ThereisnostatementofShriAsitVorafromwhoseplace,this pagewasfoundatanystageofinvestigation/assessmentwhichstatethattheappellant hasanyconnectionwiththeentriesofthispage.Insuchcircumstances,additionsmadeby theAOarenotjustified.Moreover,itisnotclearfromthenotingsthatRs.18-00written "AdaniOldA/cispayment/payableorreceipt/receivables.Adanihasnotbeenidentifiedin theassessmentorder.ThereareseveralnameslikeCharmi,Rajshah,Arjankakaare writtenonthispage,butappellant'snameisnotwrittenonthispage.Theappellanthad notransactionwithanyAdaniandnodocumentwasfoundatthepremisesofthe appellantduringthecourseofsearch.Theappellantandhisallfamilymembers,brother weresubjectedtosearchonthesameday,butnodocumentwasfoundshowingany transactionwithAdani,dateofpayment/receiptisalsonotwritten.Whetherthese transactionswerebycheques/orcashisalsonotwritten.Itisnotclearfromthesejottings aboutthetransactionandpersonsinvolved.Keepinginviewthesefactsandthebinding judgementsofvarioushigherjudicialauthorities,theadditionsmadebytheAOarenot foundjustified,hence,additionsofRs.18crorearedeleted.Theappellant'scasehasbeen foundcoveredbythefollowingbindingjudgements:- i)DCITv/s.PrarthanaConstructionPLtdinTANo.79of2000byHon'bleHighCourtof Gujarat,Ahmedabad. ii)Dr.KeyurParikh&Othersv/s.ACITCent.Cir.2(3),AhmedabadinIT(SS) No.604/Ahd/2011A.Y.2008-09byITAT'B'Bench,Ahmedabad. iii)NishantConstructionPLtdv/s.ACITinITANo.502/Ahd/2015byITAT,CommonCause &Othersv/s.UnionofIndia&OthersinCANo.505of2015Ahmedabad. iv)Commoncause&othersv/s.UnionofIndia&OthersinCANo.505of2015bythe Hon’bleSupremeCourtbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt. Thus,thisgroundofappealisallowed. 154.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theRevenueisin appealbeforeus. 154.1ThelearnedDRbeforeusreiteratedthefindingscontainedinthe assessmentorderandvehementlyreliedontheorderoftheAO. 155.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedARbeforeusplacedrelianceontheorderof thelearnedCIT-Abyreiteratingthesubmissionsmadebeforetheauthorities below. 156.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Fromtheprecedingdiscussion,wenotethatthere IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 79 wasasearchandseizureoperationundersection132oftheActatthepremises ofbartergroupdated4-12-2014.Asaresultofsearch,therewerefoundcertain loosesheetsformthepremisesofShriAshitVohrabeingathirdpartytothe presentassessee.Basedonthesedocuments,theadditionwasmadebytheAOin thehandsoftheassesseeforthedifferentamountswhichhavebeenelaborated intheprecedingparagraph.Beforewedealwiththespecificissuearisingfromthe orderoftheauthoritiesbelow,wenotethatthereisapresumptionundersection 132(4A)aswellasundersection292CoftheAct,providingthatthedocuments foundinthecourseofsearchshallbepresumedbelongingtopersonfromwhose possession(i.e.thesearchparty)suchdocument,booksofaccountetcfound. Thereisnoambiguitytothefactthatthedocumentswerefoundfromthe3 rd partywhichhavebeenusedforthepurposeoftheadditioninthehandsofthe assessee.Inotherwords,thedocumentsfoundfromthe3 rd partyhavebeenused againsttheassessee.However,onperusaloftheassessmentorder,wenotethat nothinghadbeenmentionedbytheAOregardingreasonsforusingsuch documentsagainsttheassesseewhichisagainstthespiritoftheprovisionsof section132(4A)oftheAct.Admittedly,thepresumptionprovidedundersection 132(4A)r.w.s.292CoftheActisarebuttablepresumptioni.e.thesearchpartyby bringingtheevidenceonrecordcanrebutsuchpresumption.However,onperusal oftheassessmentordernothingarisesorsuggeststhatthedocumentsbelonged totheassessee.AssuchthelearnedCIT(A)hasgivenaclearfindingthatno questionwasaskedfromtheShriAshitVohrafromwhosepremisessuchloose sheetswerefoundeitherduringthesearchproceeding,aftersearchproceedingor duringtheassessmentproceeding.ItwastheonusupontheRevenuetoproduce thecogentreasonsforusingthedocumentsagainsttheassesseewhichwere recoveredfromthe3 rd partypremisesduringsearch,butwenotethatsuchonus hasnotbeendischargedbytheRevenue.Thus,atthethreshold,weareinclined toholdthatnoadditionbasedonthedocumentsfoundfromthepremisesofthe 3 rd partycanbemadeinthehandsoftheassesseeinthegivenfactsand circumstances. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 80 156.1Furthermore,onperusaloftheloosebearingmarkaspageno.2of annexureAS-1wenotethattheleftsideofsaidpagecontain“25000-0011.11.09 AMD-chequenoentryJoy”whereastheleftsideofthepagecontain"25000-00 SanjaybhaUchina16.11.09".Thereisnomaterialonrecordtoshowthat impugnednotingwasmadebythepresentassessee,therewasnotappearing signofanyoftheparty.Assuchnameappearing“Sanjaybhai”butweagreewith learnedCIT(A)that“Sanjaybhai”isverycommonnamethereforemerelyonbasis ofname“Sanjaybhai”writtenontheimpugnedpagedoesnotmeanthatsuch transactionbelongtopresentassesseewhosenamehappentobeSanjay MahendrabhaiSutaria.Therefore,inourconsideredopinion,theinferencedrawn bytheAOthatassesseehasreceivedloanofRs.25Lakhwhichrepresents unexplainedcashcreditiswithoutanybasis. 156.2Likewise,theotherloosesheetmarkedaspage8ofannexureAS-1 Containing"AdanioldA/c18-00".Otherjottingsare"CR.15-32AgpropertyA/c new,3.65chuplakA/cnew(25oganacA/c),1.15new,Aryankakaomaj/382, MulsanetownshipA/c,8.00newinMarch,CharmiRajshahetc.Theimpugned sheetdoesnotcontainthenameoftheassessee,thedateoftransaction,the natureoftransaction,therewasnoreferencemadebytheAOinhisassessment orderreferringtothestatementsrecordedofthesearchpartywhosaidnothing aboutnotingmadeonimpugnedsheetwhereintheflowoftransactionas discussedabovewasdescribed.ThereisnobasisgivenbytheAOthathowhe hasreachedtodrawinferencethatthenotingmadeonimpugnedsheet belongs/pertainstoassesseewhichisinnatureofinvestment.Thus,itappearsto usthattherewerenotsufficientdocumentsavailablewiththeAOformakingthe impugnedadditioninthehandsoftheassessee.ItwasexpectedbytheAOat leasttoreferthestatementsintheassessmentorderofthesearchpartyfor makingtheadditioninthehandsoftheassessee.Butnosuchexercisehasbeen donebytheAO.Undertheprovisionsofsection69AoftheAct,theprimaryonus liesupontherevenue.Inotherwords,itistheonusoftherevenuetoprove basedonthedocumentaryevidencethattheassesseehasmadeaninvestment IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 81 whichhasnotbeenrecordedinthebooksofaccount.Butwenotethattheentire additionlacksreasonablebasisandsupportingcorroborativeevidence.The Hon’bleHighCourtofBombayinthecaseofCITVs.BGShirkeConstruction Technology(P)Ltd.reportedin257taxman561hasheldthattheprimaryonus underthe69Cliesupontherevenue.However,suchjudgmentwaspassedin respectoftheprovisionofsection69CoftheActandtheissuebeforeusrelates totheprovisionofsection69oftheActbuttheprinciplesunderbothprovisions arethesame.Therefore,theprincipleslaiddowninthesaidjudgmentarealso applicabletotheprovisionsofsection69oftheAct.Therelevantextractofthe judgmentisreproducedasunder: "Theprimaryrequirementforapplicationofsection69Cisthatassesseeshouldincur expensesoutofunexplainedsourceofincome.Thesectioncannotapplyifthesourceof incomeformakingexpensesisexplained.Thissectionreferstothesourceofexpenditure andnottotheexpenditureitself.Noevidenceofanyunexplainedexpenditurehasbeen broughtonrecordeitherbysearchpartyorbytheAO.Noneoftheseizedmaterialor documentindicatesthattheappellanthasincurredanyunexplainedexpenditureoutof books.Section69Cisadeemingprovision.Therefore,ithastobeinterpreted strictly.OnuswasontheAOtoprovethattheappellanthadincurredexpensesoutof booksofaccount.TheAOhasnotbroughtonrecordanymaterialtoshowthatthe appellantincurredexpensesoutofbooksofaccount” 156.3Inviewoftheabove,andafterconsideringthefactsintotality,wedo notfindanyreasontointerfereintheorderofthelearnedCIT-A.Atthetimeof hearingthelearnedDRalsohasnotbroughtanythingonrecordcontrarytothe findingofthelearnedCIT-A.Thus,weupholdtheorderofthelearnedCIT-A. Hence,thegroundofappealoftherevenueisherebydismissed. 157.Intheresult,theappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.154/Ahd/2019bytheRevenueincaseofassessee namelySanjayMahendrabhaiSutariaforA.Y.2011-12. 158.TheonlyissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.1,82,81,135/-beingunsecuredloantreatedas unexplainedcreditu/s68oftheAct. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 82 159.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissueraisedbytheRevenueinitsgrounds ofappealfortheAY2011-12incaseofcurrentassesseeisidenticaltotheissue raisedbytheRevenueinIT(SS)ANo.327/AHD/2018incaseofassesseeShri DharmendraMSutariafortheassessmentyear2009-10.Therefore,thefindings giveninIT(SS)ANo.327/AHD/2018shallalsobeapplicableforissueraisedbythe revenueagainstthecurrentassesseefortheassessmentyears2011-12.The appealoftheRevenuefortheA.Y.2009-10incaseofassesseenamelyShri DharmendraMSutariahasbeendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.85ofthisorder againsttheRevenue.ThelearnedDRandtheARalsoagreedthatwhateverwill bethefindingsfortheissueraisedbytherevenueinthecaseofShriDharmendra MSutariafortheyear2009-10shallalsobeappliedforissueraisedbythe revenueincaseofcurrentassesseefortheassessmentyears2011-12.Hence,the groundofappealfiledbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 160.IntheresultappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.172/Ahd/2019bytheRevenueincaseofassessee namelySanjayMahendrabhaiSutaria-HUFforA.Y.2011-12. 161.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsappeal: 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.4,50,000/-onaccountofunexplained- credit-entriesinthebankaccountu/s.69oftheAct. 2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.85,05,959/-onaccountofundisclosed receiptu/s.69oftheAct. 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsinadmittingadditionalevidenceproducedbytheassesseebeforethe CIT(A)inrespectofundisclosedreceiptwithoutfollowingtheprocedureprescribedinRule 46AandwithgivingAssessingOfficeropportunitytoexaminetheevidenceasmandated byRule46AoftheITRules,1962 IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 83 4.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.20,87,70,071/-onaccountofunsecured loanduringtheyearu/s.68oftheAct. 5.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.46,94,386/-onaccountofinterest disallowedagainstpaymenttounsecuredloan. 6.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserred inlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.25,00,000/-onaccountofcashreceivedin lieuofcheque. 7.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)oughtto haveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 8.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatoftheA.O. berestoredtotheaboveextent. 162.ThefirstissueraisedbytherevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionmadebytheAOundersection69oftheActforRs.4.5Lakh onaccountofunexplainedcreditinthebank. 163.Thenecessaryfactisthattheinconsequencetosearchproceedingdated 04-12-2014atthepremisesofbartergroupproceedingundersection153Cofthe Actwasinitiatedagainsttheassessee.Theassesseeinthereturnfiledinresponse tothenoticeundersection153CdeclaredanincomeatRs.89,78,744/-which includesanadditionalincomeofRs.36lakhofferedonaccountofunaccounted cashreceipt. 163.1However,theAOduringtheassessmentproceedingfoundthatthecash aggregatingtoRs.40,50,000/-depositedinthebankwhichiscorelatingwith excelsheetfoundfromthepremisesofShriAnilHiralalShah.Theimpugnedexcel sheetfoundduringthesearchcontainsinformationregardingunaccountedreceipt againstvariousprojectsofBarter/Sarthavgroupandthelayeringofthesamein thebankaccountofthevariousindividualsandotherconcernofthegroup.Asper impugnedsheetanamountofRs.40.5Lakhlayeredintothebankaccountofthe presentassesseewhichdirectlymatcheswiththecashdepositmadeinthebank IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 84 accountoftheassessee.Thus,theAOheldthatthecashdepositinthebankof theassesseewassourcedfromunexplainedsources.Hence,thesameneedstobe treatedasincomeundersection68oftheAct.However,theAOallowedthe adjustmentofRs.36Lakhofferedbytheassesseeasadditionalincomefrom othersources.Thus,theAOmadethefinaladditionofRs.4.5Lakhtothetotal incomeoftheassesseeonaccountofcashdeposit. 164.OnappealbytheassesseethelearnedCIT(A)deletedtheadditionmadeby theAObyobservingasunder: Submissionoftheappellantandthefactsmentionedintheassessmentorderhavebeen consideredcarefullyandintotality.Thefactsofcaseisthatthereturnofincomeu/s139 wasfiledforA.Y.2009-10.Later,inresponsetonoticeissuedu/s.153CoftheAct,the appellantfiledthereturnofincomeon28.11.2016theappellanthasdisclosedadditional incomeofRs.36,00,000/-.Duringtheyearunderconsideration,theappellanthasmade cashdepositofRs.35,50,000/-inthebankaccountoftheappellantwhichhasbeen erroneouslystatedasRs.40,50,000/-intheassessmentorderOnverificationofthebank statementsitbecomesapparentthattheobservationmadebytheassessingofficer regardingcashdepositofRs.5,00,000/-on04.08.2010initsHDFCbankaccountis factuallyincorrect.Thisfacthasbeenrightlypointedoutbytheappellant.Onscrutinyof thebankstatementsoftheappellantmaintainedwithCityUnionBankhavingaccountno SB-463206andHDFCbankhavingaccountno.00481930005799andCityunionbank havingaccountno.CA-91864underthenameofSiddhamFinanceofwhichtheappellantis aproprietor,itbecomesapparentthatthetotalofcashdepositsmadeamountstoRs. 35,50,000/-,AgainstthesaidcashdepositsofRs.35,50,000/-thehasmadeavoluntary disclosureRs.36,00,000/-whilefilingthereturnu/s153CoftheAct.Thus,theappellant hasofferedasumhigherthanthecashdepositsreflectedinitsbankstatements.Thus makinganadditionoverandabovesuchdisclosureisnotjustified.Consideringthefactsof theappellant'scase,IholdthattheadditionmadebytheAOofRs.4,50,000/-u/s69is notjustifiedandthesameisherebydeleted.Thisgroundofappealisallowed 165.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A)theassesseeisin appealbeforeus.BoththelearnedDRandtheARbeforeusvehemently supportedtheorderoftheauthoritiesbelowasfavourabletothem. 166.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.AdmittedlytheAOfoundthattherewascash amountingtoRs.40,50,000/-depositedinthebankaccountoftheassesseefrom unexplained/unaccountedsourcesbuttheassesseeonlyofferedadditionalincome ofRs.36Lakh.HencetheAOmadeadditionofRs.4.5Lakhonaccountremaining cashdeposit. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 85 166.1However,thelearnedCIT(A)duringtheappellateproceedingfoundthat cashamountingtoRs.35.5lakhonlydepositedinthebankaccountofassessee. Assuch,thecashdepositofRs.5Lakhdated04-08-2010consideredbytheAOas cashdepositoftheassesseewasdepositedinthebankaccountofM/sSiddham Financeinwhichthepresentassesseeispartner.Thus,thelearnedCIT(A)was pleasedtodeletetheadditionmadebytheAObyholding,againstthecash depositofRs.35.5Lakh,thattheassesseehasalreadyofferedincomeofRs.36 Lakhthereforenofurtheradditionisrequiredtobemade.Atthetimeofhearing beforeus,thelearnedDRhasnotbroughanymaterialcontrarytothefindingof thelearnedCIT(A).Therefore,wedonotfindanyreasontointerfereinthe findingofthelearnedCIT(A).Hencethegroundofappealraisedbytherevenueis herebydismissed. 167.ThenextissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.85,05,959/-onaccountofundisclosedincome. 168.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedingsfoundthatassesseehas declaredinterestincomeofRs.54,20,940/-whereasaspertheForm-26AShehas earnedinterestincomeofRs.1,39,26,901/-.HencetheAOmadetheadditionof differenceamountofRs.85,05,959/-tothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 169.Onappealbytheassessee,thelearnedCIT(A)deletedtheadditionmade bytheAObyobservingasunder: 6.2Submissionoftheappellant,thefactsmentionedintheassessmentorderhavebeen consideredcarefullyandintotality.TheAOhasdiscussedthisissueinPara6onPage7& 8oftheassessmentorder.TheAOhasmadeanobservationthatitispertinenttomention herethat,interestincomecreditedinthebooksaccountisRs.54,20,940/-butasperForm 26AS,interestincomeoftheassesseeforA.Y.2011-12isRs.1,39,26,901/-Ihaveperused allthesupportingdocumentsplacedonrecordandtherebyitisapparentthatthetotal interestincomecreditedisinfactRs.1,32,95,874/-(wronglystatedbytheAOasRs. 1,39,26,901/-)andthisamountalsomatcheswiththeincomeasperForm26AS,whichis submittedatPageno.198ofthepaperbook.Onperusaloftheinterestledgeraccount submittedbytheappellantatpageno.197ofthepaperbookaswellasthecontra confirmationsofthelenderpartiestowhominteresthasbeenpaiditisclearthatthe appellanthaspaidinterestamountingtoRs.78,74,934/-andafternettingoffthesame,Rs. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 86 54,20,940/-iscreditedtoprofitandlossaccount.Consideringthefactsoftheappellant's case,IholdthattheadditionmadebytheAOofRs.85,05,959u/s69isnotjustifiedand thesameisherebydeleted.Thisgroundofappealisallowed. 170.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A)theassesseeisin appealbeforeus. 170.BoththelearnedDRandtheARbeforeusvehementlysupportedtheorder oftheauthoritiesbelowasfavourabletothem. 171.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialonrecord.Fromtheprecedingdiscussion,wenotethattheAOnotedthat therewasdifferenceinamountofinterestincomeofferedbytheassesseeviz-a- vizamountofinterestincomeearnedbytheassesseeasperForm-26AS.Thus, theAOmadetheadditionofdifferentialamount.However,wenotethatthe learnedCIT(A)foundthattheassesseehasofferedinterestincomeafternetting oftheinterestexpenses.Assuchtherewasnodifferenceinamountofinterest incomeasperbooksviz-a-vizasperForm-26AS.HencethelearnedCIT(A) deletedtheadditionmadebytheAO.Attimehearingbeforeus,thelearnedDR hasnotbroughanymaterialcontrarytothefindingofthelearnedCIT(A). Therefore,inabsenceofanycontrarymaterial,werestrictourselvesfrom interferinginthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A).Hencethegroundofappealofthe Revenueisherebydismissed. 172.ThelastissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionmadeundersection68oftheActonaccountofunsecured loanofRs.20,87,70,071/-anddisallowancesofinterestpaymentthereonforRs. 46,94,386/-only. 173.TheAOfoundthattheassesseeduringtheyearhasreceivedunsecured loanfromthefollowingparties: NameAdditionduringtheyear Others128050000 IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 87 ShreejInfrastrucuture128050000 Total Groupentities AbhihreeVillaCo.22875000 SarthavBuilders20689474 SarthavFarms&Resort11492000 SarthavProjects5012440 SthapatyaShilpConstruction8888540 SthapatyaShilpDeveloper11762617 Totalunsecuredloans80720071 Totaladditionofunsecuredtoothers128050000 Totaladditionofunsecuredtogroupentities80720071 Totalunsecuredloanduringtheyear208770071 173.1TheAOtreatedtheabove-mentionedreceiptofunsecuredloanas unexplainedcashcreditundersection68oftheActandaddedtototalincomeof theassesseebyholdingthattheassesseefailedtoestablishtheidentity& creditworthinessofthecreditorandgenuinenessoftransaction.TheAOalso disallowedtheclaimoftheinterestpaidagainsttheimpugnedunsecuredloanof Rs.46,94,386/-only. 174.Onappealbytheassessee,thelearnedCIT(A)deletedtheadditionmade bytheAOonmeritaswellasontechnicalgroundbyfollowingthejudgmentof Hon’bleGujaratHighCourtincaseofPCITvs.SaumyaConstructionPvtLtd (supra). 175.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),therevenueisin appealbeforeus.BoththelearnedDRandtheARbeforeusvehemently supportedtheorderoftheauthoritiesbelowasfavourabletothem. 176.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,therewassearchproceedingsunder section132oftheActdated4 th December2014(i.e.duringthefinancialyear 2014-15correspondingtoA.Y.2015-16)whichwascarriedoutinthecaseof BarterGroupi.e.groupconcernoftheassesseeandaccordinglyproceedings IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 88 undersection153CoftheActwasstartedinthecaseofrespondentassessee.The assessmentundersection143(3)r.w.s.153CoftheActfortheyearunder considerationi.e.A.Y.2011-12wasframedwhereinanadditionwasmadeon accountofunsecuredloanbytreatingthesameasunexplainedcashcreditunder section68oftheAct.Onappealbytheassessee,thelearnedCIT(A)deletedthe additionmadebytheAObothonthegroundoflawaswellasonthegroundof merit.Theld.CIT-Awhiledeletingtheadditiononthegroundoflawfoundthat therewasnomaterialofincriminatingnatureinrelationtounsecuredloanfound duringthesearchproceeding,thereforetheyearunderconsiderationbeing unabated/completedassessmentyear,anyadditionmadeinabsenceof incriminatingmaterialisnotjustified.ThelearnedDRbeforeusvehemently arguedthatthereisnoprovisionundersection153Cwhichrestrictsthe assessmentorreassessmentincaseofsearchtotheextentofincriminating materialonly. 176.1Attheoutset,wenotethattheissuethatnoassessmentofincomeinthe proceedingundersection153A/153Ccanbemadeintheabsenceofincriminating materialfoundduringthesearchcamebeforeusinIT(SS)NO.317/Ahd/2018an appealbytherevenueinthecaseofassesseenamelySarthavInvestment.The issuehasbeenelaboratelydiscussedinparagraphno.19.3to19.6ofthisorder wherewehaveconfirmedthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A).Thus,thetechnical groundofappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissed.Assuchweholdthatthere cannotbeanyadditionofregularitemstothetotalincomeoftheassesseewhich haveonlybeendisclosedinthereturnofincome.Admittedlythe additions/disallowancesmadebytheAOrepresenttheregularitemsdisclosedin thereturnofincome,thereforetheAOisdirectedtodeletetheadditionmadeby him. 176.2Withoutprejudicetotheabove,weproceedtoadjudicatetheissueon meritaswell.Admittedlythebooksofaccountoftheassesseehavebeencredited intheformofunsecuredloanfrom7parties.Theprovisionofsection68ofthe IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 89 Actimposesontheassesseetoexplainthenatureandthesourcesofthecreditto thesatisfactionoftheAO.Overtheyears,thecourtshavelaiddowntheprimary onusontheassesseetoestablishtheidentityofthecreditor,genuinenessof transactionandthecreditworthinessofthecreditor.Oncetheassesseefurnishes theprimarydocumentwithregardtosaidthreeingredientsi.e.identity, genuinenessandcreditworthiness,thenoonusshiftsontheAOtobringcontrary materialbymakingnecessaryenquiryorverification. 176.3Inthepresentcasename,PANandaddressofallthe7partieswerebefore theAOandallthese7partiesweresubjecttoassessmentproceedingsbeforethe sameAO.Therefore,theonusoftheassesseeregardingtheidentityofcreditor hasbeenfullydischarged.Likewise,withregardtogenuinenessoftransactionand creditworthinessofcreditor,theassesseefurnishesthedetailsuchasledgercopy fromitsbooksofaccountandcontraledgercopyfromthebooksofthecreditors alongwithbankstatementofthecreditor.Theassesseealsofurnishedacopyof ITRofthecreditorpartiesexceptfortwopartiesnamelyAbhishreeVillaCoand SarthavProject.ItispertinenttomentionthattheAOwashavingaccesstoall thesedocumentsandentireotherdetailsbeingtheAOofthecreditorparties. Thus,inourconsideredopinion,theassesseealsodischargeonuscastonit regardinggenuinenessoftransactionandcreditworthinessandonusshiftedon theAO.TheAOwithoutpointinganyinfirmityinalltheseprimarydocumentsand bringingcontrarymaterialonrecordheldthattheassesseefailedtodischargeits onusandmadeadditionundersection68oftheActwhichinourconsidered opinionisnotjustified. 176.4Bethatasmaybe,wenotetheassesseehasreceivedamountfromthe creditorthroughbankingchannelwhichhasbeenrepaidtothepartiesthrough bankingchannelintheyearunderconsiderationandinsubsequentyearsalong withinterestwhereverapplicable.TheassesseealsodeductedTDSfromthe interestpaidtotheparties.Thus,theratiolaiddownbytheHon’bleGujarathigh IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 90 courtinthecaseofCITVs.Rohinibuildersreportedin256ITR360squarely applicableonthepresentcasewhereinitwasheldasunder: “Thegenuinenessofthetransactionisprovedbythefactthatthepaymenttothe assesseeaswellasrepaymentoftheloanbytheassesseetothedepositorsismadeby accountpayeechequesandtheinterestisalsopaidbytheassesseetothecreditorsby accountpayeecheques.” 176.5Thus,inviewoftheaboveelaborateddiscussion,wedonotfindany infirmityintheorderofthelearnedCIT(A).Therefore,weupholdthesameand directtheAOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhimundersection68oftheAct. Hence,thegroundofappealoftheRevenueisherebydismissedonmerit. 177.IntheresultappealtheRevenueisdismissed. ComingtoCoNo.166/AHD/2019inIT(SS)No.172/Ahd/2019bythe assesseenamelySanjayMahendrabhaiSutaria-HUFforA.Y.2011-12. 178.TheassesseevideobjectionNo.1ofthecaptionedcrossobjection challengedthevalidityofissueofnoticeundersection153CoftheActonthe groundthatnoticewasissuedwithoutrecordingnecessarysatisfactionnote. 178.1Attheoutset,wenotethatthelearnedARfortheassesseeatthetimeof hearingbeforeussubmittedthathehasbeeninstructedbytheassesseenotto presstheimpugnedgroundofappeal.Hencetheimpugnedgroundofappealof theassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. 179.Comingtotheothergroundofobjection,wenotethattheassesseehas supportedtheorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparate adjudicationisrequiredfortheothergroundofobjectionfiledbytheassessee. Hence,wedismissthesameasInfructuous. 180.Intheresult,theCOfiledbytheassesseeisherebydismissed IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 91 ComingtoIT(SS)No.277/Ahd/2018bytheassesseenamelySthapatya ShilpConstructionforA.Y.2011-12. 181.Theassesseevidecaptionappealchallengedthevalidityofissueofnotice undersection153CoftheActintheabsenceofvalidsatisfactionnoteandon accountofincriminatingmaterialnotfoundduringthesearchoperation. 181.1Attheoutset,wenotethatthelearnedARfortheassesseeatthetimeof hearingbeforeussubmittedthathehasbeeninstructedbytheassesseenotto presstheimpugnedgroundofappeal.Hencetheimpugnedgroundofappealof theassesseeisherebydismissedasnotpressed. 181.2Intheresultappealoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. ComingtoIT(SS)No.313/Ahd/2018byRevenueincaseofassessee namelySthapatyaShilpConstructionforA.Y.2011-12. 182.TheRevenuehasraisedthefollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)haserredin lawandonfactsindeletingtheadditionofRs.39,00,000/-madebytheAOu/s.68ofthe ITAct,1961.2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd. CIT(A)haserredinlawandonfactsindeletingtheadditiononaccountofunsecuredloan u/s.68oftheActofRs.1,84,07,452/-. 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)oughtto haveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 4.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetasideandthatoftheA.O. berestoredtotheaboveextent. 183.ThefirstissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionofRs.39,00,000/-beingcashdepositsinthebankaccount. 184.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissuesraisedbytheRevenueinitsgrounds ofappealfortheAY2011-12incaseofcurrentassesseeisidenticaltotheissue IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 92 raisedbytheRevenueinIT(SS)ANo.326/AHD/2018incaseoftheassessee namelyShriDharmendraMSutariafortheassessmentyear2010-11.Therefore, thefindingsgiveninIT(SS)ANo.326/AHD/2018shallalsobeapplicableforissue raisedbytherevenueagainstthecurrentassesseefortheassessmentyear2011- 12.TheappealoftheRevenuefortheA.Y.2010-11incaseofassesseenamely ShriDharmendraMSutariahasbeendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.104ofthis orderagainsttheRevenue.ThelearnedDRandtheARalsoagreedthatwhatever willbethefindingsfortheissueraisedbytherevenueinthecaseofShri DharmendraMSutariafortheassessmentyear2010-11shallalsobeappliedfor issueraisedbytherevenueincaseofcurrentassesseefortheassessmentyear 2011-12.Hence,thegroundofappealfiledbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 185.ThelastissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin deletingtheadditionmadebytheAOofRs.1,84,07,252/-beingunsecuredloan treatedasunexplainedcashcreditu/s68oftheAct. 186.TheAOintheassessmentproceedingsfoundthattheassesseehastaken anunsecuredloanaggregatingtoRs.1,84,07,452/-fromthefollowingparties: NameTotal(Rs.) Others AlpaLaboratories2700000 SamribhaiNarendraBhaiPatel700000 SarthavBuilders338814 ZodiacEnergyPvt.Limited2353819 AbhishilpShops&OfficeCo-op.Society11914819 SthapatyaShilpBuilders400000 Total18407452 186.1TheAOinabsenceofsatisfactoryexplanationregardinggenuinenessof transactionandcreditworthinessofthepartytreatedimpugnedunsecuredfrom abovepartiesasunexplainedcashcreditundersection68oftheActandaddedto thetotalincomeoftheassessee. IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 93 187.Onappealbytheassessee,thelearnedCIT(A)waspleasedtodeletethe additionmadebytheAObyontechnicalgroundi.e.noincriminatingmaterialin relationtounsecuredloantransactionwasfoundwhichcouldhavebeenmade basisforadditionintheproceedingundersection153CoftheActanddeletedthe additiononmeritaswell. 188.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theRevenueisin appealbeforeus.BoththelearnedDRandtheARbeforeusvehemently supportedtheorderoftheauthoritiesbelowasfavourabletothem. 189.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecords.Attheoutset,wenotethattheregularassessment undersection143(3)oftheActhasalreadybeencompleted.Thus,asperthe principleslaiddownbytheHon’bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofPCITvs. SaumyaConstructionPvtLtd.(supra),thecompletedassessmentcannotbe disturbedintheabsenceoftheincriminatingmaterialfoundduringthesearch operation.Onperusaloftheassessmentorderandthefindingofthelearned CIT(A),wenotethatnoincriminatingmaterialwasfoundorreferredtobytheAO inrelationtounsecuredloan.Therefore,theadditionmadebytheAOinthe absenceofincriminatingmaterialwasnotsustainable.Onthisissue,adetailed findinghasbeengivenbyusvideparagraphno44ofthisorderwhileadjudicating theRevenue’sappealbearingIT(SS)ANo509/Ahd/2019.Fordetaileddiscussion, pleaserefertotheaforementionedparagraphofthisorder. 189.1Withoutprejudicetotheabove,weproceedtoadjudicatetheissueon merit.Theprovisionofsection68oftheActrequirestheassesseetoexplainthe natureandsourceofcreditinthebooksoftheaccountmaintainedforany previousyear.However,wefindthatthelearnedCIT(A)hasgivenclearfinding thattherewerecertainpartiesfromwhomnofreshamountwascreditedduring IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 94 theyear.Assuchtheamountrepresentsopeningoutstandingamountcarried forwardfromearlieryearswhicharedetailedasunder: NameTotal(Rs.)Opening Balance AlpaLaboratries27,00,00027,00,000 SamirbhaiNarendrabhai Patel 7,00,0007,00,000 SarthavBuilders3,38,8143,38,814 ZodiacEnergyPvt.Ltd23,53,91923,53,819 AbhishilpShops& OfficeCoop.Society 1,19,14,81925,51,279 SthapatyashilpBuilders4,00,0004,00,000 Total1,84,07,45290,43,912 189.2Thus,becausetheaboveamountrepresentsopeningbalancebasedon whichtheAOinvokedtheprovisionofsection68oftheAct,weholdthatno additionissustainableandneedstobedeleted.Hence,wedonotfindanyreason tointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A)tothisextent. 189.3ComingtotheremainingamountofRs.93,63540/-(1,19,14,819– 25,51,279)creditedduringtheyearinthenameofpartynamelyAbhishilShop& OfficeCo.Opsociety,inthisregard,wefindthattheassesseefirmwasworkingas developerofthelandoftheimpugnedsocietyandmadecollectionfrom member/customerofsocietyonvariousaccountswhichweretobereimbursedto thesociety.Accordingly,ajournalentryintheledgercreditingthesocietywas passedduringtheyear.Assuchnoactualtransferoffundshastakenplace. Further,thenatureandoriginofsuchcreditinthebooksofaccountwasduly explained.Therewasnodoubtraisedbytherevenuewithregardtofactthatthe assesseefirmwasworkingasdeveloperforthelandownedbythepartynamely AbhishilShop&OfficeCo.Opsocietyandcollectedcertainchargesfromthe membersofsocietyonbehalfofsocietyandpassedjournaladjustmententry. Thus,inourconsideredopinionthelearnedCIT(A)rightlydeletedtheaddition IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 95 madebytheAOundersection68oftheActonsuchcreditinthebooksof accountoftheassessee. 189.4Inviewoftheaboveandafterconsideringthefactsintotality,wedonot findanyreasontointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A).Therefore,we upholdthesame.HencethegroundsofappealraisedbytheRevenueishereby dismissed. 190.Intheresultappealoftherevenueisherebydismissed. ComingtoCONo.121inIT(SS)No.313/Ahd/2018byassesseenamely SthapatyaShilpConstructionforA.Y.2011-12. 191.Attheoutset,wenotethattheassesseeintheCOfiledbyithassupported theorderoftheLd.CIT-A.Accordingly,weholdthatnoseparateadjudicationis requiredfortheCOfiledbytheassessee.Hence,wedismissthesameas Infructuous. 192.Intheresult,theCOoftheassesseeisherebydismissed. 193.Inthecombinedresult: Sr.No.IT(SS)ANo. Asstt. Year AppealByResult 1. IT(SS)A No.293/Ahd/2018 2011-12 Asessee SarthavInvestment Dismissed 2-3. IT(SS)A No.317/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.125/Ahd/2019 2011-12RevenuewithCODismissed 4-5. IT(SS)A No.318/Ahd/2018 With C.O 2015-16 RevenuewithCO Dismissed IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 96 No.126/Ahd/2019 6. IT(SS)A No.294/Ahd/2018 2015-16 Assessee Dismissed 7. IT(SS)A No.509/Ahd/20192012-13 Revenue M/s.SarthavInfratech,Dismissed 8. IT(SS)A No.295/Ahd/2018 2013-14AssesseeDismissed 9-10. IT(SS)A No.311/Ahd/2018 with C.O No.14/Ahd/2020 2013-14RevenuewithC.ODismissed 11-12 IT(SS)A No.510/Ahd/2019 With C.O No.26/Ahd/2020 2014015RevenuewithCODismissed 13. IT(SS)A No.296/Ahd/2018 2009-10 Assessee Dharmendra MahendrabhaiSutaria, Dismissed 14-15 IT(SSA No.327/Ahd/2018 withC.O No.148/Ahd/2019 2009-10RevenuewithCODismissed 16-17 IT(SS)A No.326/Ahd/2018 with C.O.131/Ahd/2019 2010-11RevenuewithCODismissed 18. IT(SS)A No.297/Ahd/2018 2011-17AssesseeAllowed 19-20 IT(SS)A No.328/Ahd/2018 With C.O No.149/Ahd/2019 2012-13RevenuewithCODismissed 21-22 IT(SS)A No.307/Ahd/2018 with C.O No.130/Ahd/2018 2014-15RevenuewithCODismissed 23-24 IT(SS)A No.541/Ahd/2019 WithC.O No.25/Ahd/2022 2015-16RevenuewithCODismissed 25. IT(SS)A No.298/Ahd/2018 2011-12AssesseeDismissed 26-27 IT(SS)ANo.153- 154/Ahd/2019 2010-11& 2011-12 RevenueDismissed 28-29 IT(SS)A No.172/Ahd/2019 2011-12RevenuewithCODismissed IT(SS)ANo.293/Ahd/2018and31others A.Y.2011-12 97 With C.O No.166/Ahd/2019 30. IT(SS) No.277/Ahd/2018 2011-12 Assessee SthapatyaShilp Construction, Dismissed 31-32 IT(SS)A No.313/Ahd/2018 with C.O No.121/Ahd/2019 2011-12RevenuewithCODismissed OrderpronouncedintheCourton31/07/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (T.RSENTHILKUMAR) JUDICIALMEMBER (WASEEMAHMED) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated31/07/2023 Manish आदेशकीपधरधलधपअगेधेर/ CopyoftheOrderforwardedto: 1. अपीलार्/TheAppellant 2. प्र्/TheRespondent. 3. संबंधितआयकरआयुक/ConcernedCIT 4. आयकरआयुक(अपील)/TheCIT(A) 5. धवभागीयपधतधनधि,आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण/DR,ITAT, 6. गार्फाईल/Guardfile. आदेशानुसार/BYORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,अहमदाबाद /ITAT,Ahmedabad