TEHMUL BURJOR SETHNA,AHMEDABAD V. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 6/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Tehmul Burjor Sethna against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, concerning assessments for the years 2011-12 to 2017-18 following a search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issues revolved around the validity of the assessments, additions made under various sections including unexplained investments and unaccounted expenditures, and the mechanical approval of assessments under section 153D. The Tribunal examined each issue based on legal provisions and factual evidence presented during the hearings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785996 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2024
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal, ACIT Vs. Serajuddin & Co., SMW Ispat P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Shri Navin Jain Vs. DCIT, Shri Inder Pal Singh Vs. DCIT, Pr.CIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, Pr.CIT Vs. Sapna Gupta, Finesse International Design P.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CIT vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. P. SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M.S. CHHAJED; HEM CHHAJED
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized; Tax effect; Principle of natural justice; Validity of assessment; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3); 153A; 68; 131; 133(6); 69C; 10; 80G

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Tehmul Burjor Sethna 304, Aakansha Building, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. बनाम/ Vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad \u0005ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AMDPS6538G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0014 ओर से /Appellant by : Shri M.S. Chhajed & Shri Hem Chhajed, A.Rs. \u0016\u0017थ\u0014 की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A. P. Singh, CIT.DR Date of Hearing 05/08/2025, 23/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER All the above appeals relate to the same assessee, filed against separate orders of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (“Ld.CIT(A)” for short) passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the above seven assessment years (A.Y). 2. All the appeals, it was common ground, have come up before us against the orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) in appeals filed against orders passed by Assessing Officer (AO) consequent to search action IT(SS)A Nos. 3 to 9/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 2 conducted on the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act, u/s 153A of the Act r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. 3. Search was conducted on the assessee on 29.11.2016, and accordingly notices under section 153A of the Act were issued for six years preceding the assessment year in which search was undertaken for framing assessment, and assessment framed for the search year also u/s 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly assessments were framed for six years preceding the search year i.e. A.Y 2011-12 to A.Y 2016-17 and also for the year in which search was conducted i.e A.Y 2017- 18. Several additions were made in the hands of the assessee by the AO, which were partly confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), aggrieved by which the assessee has come up in appeal before us in all seven years involved. It was stated by the Ld.DR that no appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. It was also common ground that there were primarily two issues on which addition was made in all the years involved, while on other issues the additions were not repetitive but confined to few of the years involved. A chart to this effect, reflecting the additions/ issues agitated assessment year-wise, was placed before us, giving a bird’s view on the issues involved in all the years before us. The same is reproduced hereunder: Assessment Year S. No. Grounds of Appeal 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding validity of assessment order though same being time barred. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the NA NA Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 3 Ld. A.O. without incrementing materials for unabated assessment. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act on Investment in Joint Venture with Mr. Neil Master. 12,25,000 15,94,000 18,87,900 28,63,000 9,88,500 8,16,500 24.46,50 0 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of as Unexplained Money. 17.00,000 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not allowing the addition U/S 69C of the Act of as unaccounted Expenditure. 23.82,000 , 1,60,000 6 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Cash withdrawn by Trust. 49,54,158 5,45,000 42,50,022 1,05,05,355 52,55,140 6,31,000 36,50,00 0 7 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the disallowance of deduction claimed U/S 80G of the Act. 50,000 50,000 92.734 73,345 8 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of on unaccounted sale proceeds of Immovable properties. 50,00,000 9 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of commission income. 36,000 TOTAL 61,79.158 21.89.000 85.69,922 1.53.21.089 1,12.43,64 0 15,56.845 60,96.50 0 5. Arguments were made issue-wise and are therefore being adjudicated by us likewise. The appeals accordingly will be decided referring to our adjudication to each issue in the respective ground raised. The assessee has raised both legal issues as well as issues on merits of additions made. Arguments were first made on the legal issues raised before us. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 4 6. ISSUE No.1 Assessment Order barred by limitation 6.1 The first legal issue raised by the assessee relates to the assessment order being invalid on account of having been passed beyond the time limit specified by law/being barred by limitation. 6.2 The assessee’s grievance is against the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessment order was passed within the time limit prescribed under law at para 7.3 & 7.4 of his order for A.Y 2011-12, as under: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 5 6.3 It was common ground that the reasoning of the Ld.CIT(A) was identical in all the years where this grievance was raised by the assessee. 6.4 Arguments raised by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee in this regard was that though the Ld.CIT(A) held the assessment order to be passed within the extended time limit prescribed as per clause (b) of Explanation to section 153B of the Act, noting the fact that reference was made during assessment proceedings to FT & TR for obtaining information, however, he doubted any reference being made in this regard since he contended, there was no intimation given to the assessee of the same. It was pointed out that while in his remand report submitted to the ld.CIT(A) the AO had mentioned the fact of such a reference being made ,no evidence of the same was ever confronted to the assessee. 6.5 At this juncture, it was pointed out at Bar to the ld.counsel for the assessee that a fact stated by the AO, and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) leaves no scope for doubt unless something contrary is brought on record; that mere doubting the reference made by the AO, when the fact is that the ld.CIT(A) recorded specific date of the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 6 reference made to the Joint Secretary, FT&TR, New Delhi, as being on 10.4.2019, and also noted the fact of the assessee being informed of the same vide letter dated 4.9.2019, called for no doubt to be remaining regarding the reference being made. 6.6 The ld.counsel for the assessee admitted to the fact that he was put to notice of the fact of reference being made to the FT&TR in its case, but still persisted with being doubtful of any actual reference being made. To satisfy the assessee, therefore, the ld.DR was directed to produce copy of the reference made in the case of the assessee, which was placed before us by the ld.DR on 21.11.2024 when the matter was taken up for hearing. The ld.DR contended that being a confidential document, the assessee was not to be provided with the copy of the same. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated at Bar that if the Bench is satisfied on perusal of the documents that a reference was made, then he had nothing more to say. 6.7 On perusing the contents of the documents filed before us, it was conveyed to the ld.counsel for the assessee that there was a reference made to FT&TR on 10.4.2019, and for the sake of perusing the same the Ld.Counsel for the assessee was also given a copy of the same in the Court. After perusal of the same, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that he had nothing more to say in the matter. These facts were recorded in the order-sheet entry dated 21.11.2024 as under: “In response to our order-sheet entry dated 20.6.2024 the ld.DR has filed evidence on the reference made in the case of the assessee to FT&TR. The copy of the same was given to the ld.counsel for the assessee, who had nothing to say thereafter on the fact of a valid reference made in the case of the assessee to FT&TR.” Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 7 6.8 The ld.counsel for the assessee, however, persisted to argue that reference was not valid, since the assessee was never intimated about such reference being made. In this regard, the ld.counsel for the assessee was asked at Bar to point out the provision of law which required the assessee to be intimated of any such reference being made. It was pointed out to the Ld.Counsel for the assessee at bar that the Department authorities were free to carry out any investigation/inquiry with respect to an assessee, and it was only when they came in possession of any adverse material in the course of such inquiry/investigation that natural justice demanded the same to be confronted to the assessee before being used against it. The ld.counsel for the assessee was unable to point out any specific provision of law, requiring the assessee to be intimated prior to any reference being made to FT&TR. 6.9 In view of the above, since admittedly, the assessee has made out no case before us on the aspect of the assessment order passed in the present case being barred by limitation, this ground/issue raised by the assessee is dismissed. 7. ISSUE NO.2 Approval given u/s 153D of the Act was mechanical 7.1 The next argument of the assessee was with respect to the assessment order passed being vitiated on account of the mandatory approval of higher authority to the draft order passed by the AO u/s153A of the Act, as required by Section 153D of the Act, being granted mechanically, and without any application of mind. Our attention was first drawn to the provision of section 153D of the Act, which read as under : Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 8 “Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition. 153D. No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 7.2 The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that Courts in many cases have held that this a mandatory requirement of law, which should be strictly followed in spirit and substance, and therefore any mechanical approval granted, has been held to vitiate the entire proceedings. The assessee relied on the following judicial decisions in support of its proposition that a mechanical approval granted under section 153D vitiated the entire assessment proceedings: i) PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal, 165 taxmann.com 2 (Delhi) ii) PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal, 165 taxmann.com 3 (SC) iii) ACIT Vs. Serajuddin & Co., 454 ITR 312 (Orissa) and 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC) iv) SMW Ispat P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT 112 ITR (Trib.Pune) 224 v) Shri Navin Jain Vs. DCIT (Luck-Trib) 91 ITR 682; vi) Shri Inder Pal Singh Vs. DCIT, (Dehradun-Trib) ITA No.3900/Del/2015 7.3 The ld.counsel for the assessee has raised as many as seven issues demonstrating the mechanical grant of approval in the present case. Before considering each contention it is imperative to reproduce the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act, which was placed before us Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 9 7.4 The first reasoning of the assessee for mechanical grant of approval is that the officer giving approval did not apply his mind as to when the assessment was getting time barred. His argument in this regard was that while the letter of the AO seeking approval of the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 10 ACIT under section 153D of the Act (copy placed before us) mentioned date 31-12-2019 as time barring date for passing the order in the present case, the concerned officer granted the approval asking the AO to pass order and ensure that the same is served upon the assessee well within the time limit as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. The argument of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that since a reference was made to the FT&TR, the time limit for passing order had been extended to 30-09-2020. The AO had mentioned an incorrect date in his communication to the ACIT, and the ACIT without applying his mind, despite all records available before him including reference to FT&TR, had directed the AO to pass an order within the time limit. Thus, displaying non- application of mind on the part of the ACIT. 7.5 We do not find any substance or merit in this reasoning of the assessee. In fact the contentions made by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee is , we find, factually incorrect .The AO may have mentioned an incorrect date in his communication for the assessment getting time barred, but the fact of the matter is, the ACIT directed him to pass order within time limit as prescribed by law. He did not, in any manner, subscribe or approve the date of limitation mentioned by the AO. 7.6 Even otherwise, it is not disputed that the assessment order in the present case was passed within the time limit prescribed under the law. Whether the ACIT approves some other date mentioned by the AO in his communications makes no difference at all to the case on hand. It is a very small aspect for consideration of grant of approval. The ACIT might have directed the AO to complete the assessment by an incorrect date, but, clearly, the AO has done his job within time limit prescribed as per the law. So this aspect of the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 11 matter has no reflection on the aspect of adequate application of mind for grant approval under section 153D of the Act. 7.7 Therefore, this argument/reasoning of the ld.counsel for the assessee for stating that the ACIT had not applied his mind while approving draft order under section 153D of the Act is rejected. 7.8 His next contention was that the approval was granted despite the fact on record showing that no show cause notice was issued to the assessee prior to framing of draft assessment; that even the show cause notice issued was time barred; that the actual show cause notice issued to the assessee contained frivolous issues and the same was not reproduced /was different from the show cause notice reproduced in the assessment order. 7.9 The ld.counsel for the assessee was asked to point out, as to which was the notice issued by the AO finally before framing the assessment. He drew our attention to page no.10 of the PB for Asst.Year 2011-12. The said notice, we found, mentioned fact of the notice being issued under the provisions of section 142(3) of the Act. The provision of section 142(3) are reproduced as under for clarity: 142(3) The assessee shall, except where the assessment is made under section 144, be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of any material gathered on the basis of any inquiry under sub-section (2) or any audit under sub-section (2A) and proposed to be utilised for the purposes of the assessment 7.10 On going through the above it transpires that the said provision required the issuance of show cause notice to the assessee before finally framing an assessment. Thus, it is evident and clear that the notice issued to the assessee was a show cause notice, and contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee that no show cause notice was issued to the assessee is factually incorrect. Therefore, Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 12 this reasoning of the ld.counsel for the assessee also needs to be rejected. 7.11 Coming to the next contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee that entire show cause notice was not reproduced in the assessment order, and that original show cause notice, contents of which were not reproduced in the order, contained frivolous issues, we find the same also merits no consideration. Admittedly, the show cause notice which is reproduced in the assessment order, contained the issues, which were dealt with during the assessment proceedings. The fact that some of the contents of the show cause notice were not reproduced in the assessment order make no difference to the final outcome of the proceedings. The fact, which remains is that, the assessee was confronted in the show cause notice with all the issues, on which the AO proposed to make addition, and that is sufficient adherence with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this reasoning of the ld.counsel for the assessee also merits no consideration, and is dismissed. 7.12 His next contention was that one consolidated approval was granted by the ACIT for all seven years when Courts in number of cases have held that the word “each” specified under section 153D needs to be given due weightage and adequate meaning, and as such for each separate year approval has to be given under section 153D of the Act. 7.13 We have considered this contentions, and we do not find any merit in the same. The ld.counsel for the assessee in this regard, has relied on the following judgments: 1) Pr.CIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, (2024) 467 ITR 186 (Del) Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 13 2) Pr.CIT Vs. Sapna Gupta, (2023) 147 taxmann.com 288 (All) These judgments were rendered in the facts and circumstances, where the concerned authority granted approval in one line for all the years concerned. In the present case, letter granting approval shows that the ACIT has granted his approval specifically mentioning each separate year. Therefore, what can be derived from the same is that he has granted approval for each year separately, which as per the ld.counsel for the assessee is also the requirement of law as interpreted by courts. Therefore, this argument of the ld.counsel for the assessee that consolidated approval was granted for all the years involved, and therefore, it is just a mechanical approval, merits no consideration, and is rejected. 7.14 His next contention was that the communication of the ACIT granting approval did not carry any DIN number. Therefore, as per the CBDT circular itself it is to be treated as if no approval was granted. 7.15 In this regard reliance was placed on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of Finesse International Design P.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2024) 204 ITD 594. 7.16 The ld.counsel for the assessee, at the same time, fairly pointed out to us that the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd.(2023) 149 taxmann.com 238 (Del) holding that any notice or order passed without mentioning DIN was to be ignored and treated as not passed, was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against the same was admitted. The ld.counsel for the assessee fairly pointed out that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order reported in 158 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 14 taxmann.com 247 (SC) admitted the SLP of the Department directing stay of the operation of decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 7.17 To this, it was proposed to the ld.counsel for the assessee, on this aspect, therefore, that the issue can be restored back to the AO for adjudication after the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the same. To which he fairly agreed. 7.18 Therefore, the issue of vitiation of the entire proceedings on account of DIN not being mentioned on the letter granting approval under section 153D of the Act, is restored back to the AO with the direction to apply the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the same, as and when decided. 7.19 Lack of application of mind by the ACIT while granting approval, it was contended, was also evident from the fact that on the issue of addition made of withdrawals made from the bank account of a trust, the allegation of the department being that it was being managed by the assessee himself and the money used by him, the same addition had also been made in the hands of the trust in its assessment. 7.20 The ld.DR pointed out to us that while in the hands of the assessee, the withdrawals made from the trust had been taxed, treating the allegation that the assessee was managing the Trust and utilizing the money withdrawn therefrom, in the hands of the trust on the other hand, he contended exemption under section 11 had been denied. He further pointed out that in the first appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A) in the case of the trust, the present assessee before us, had filed an affidavit to the effect that he had been running the trust and utilizing the funds. In this regard, he drew our attention to the finding noted by the ld.CIT(A) in the order for Asst.Year 2011- 12 as under: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 15 7.21 In view of the above the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that duplicate addition was made in the hands of the assessee and the trust on account of cash withdrawn therefrom, we find, is factually incorrect. Considering the same, we see no infirmity in the approval granted by the ACIT . 7.22 His next contention was that there was no incriminating material found during the search, and therefore, in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P.Ltd (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) in the case of these assessment years, where the assessment was unabated, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee; that therefore, the grant of approval for these years was without any application of mind by the ACIT. 7.23 The ld.counsel for the assessee was directed to place before us in tabular form all the material, which the AO had noted to be incriminating in his assessment order, and to demonstrate how they do not tantamount to incriminating material. The same was placed before us. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 16 7.24 On perusing the contents of the same, we find that with respect to all the additions made ,including addition made on account of investments made in JV with Neil Master, on account of withdrawal from the Trust, unaccounted expenditure, unexplained money, unaccounted sale proceeds, the table submitted by the assessee itself lists various incriminating material found by way of diary containing notings, signed cheques, deposit slips, MOU of Trust, counterfoil of donation receipts, rough notings, electronic data, WhatsApp chat etc. The justification of the assessee for the same not being incriminating, are only replies of the assessee in this regard, justifying genuineness or otherwise of these documents. 7.25 Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee that no incriminating material was found during the search. This argument of the ld.counsel for the assessee also needs to be rejected. 7.26 In effect, therefore, all the arguments made by the ld.counsel for the assessee on the issue of mechanical grant of approval granted u/s 153D of the Act are found devoid of any merit, except that relating to DIN and thus, ground raised by the assessee challenging validity of assessment framed in the absence of proper approval as mandated in law u/s 153 D of the Act is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. ISSUE NO.3 Issue regarding addition made of cash deposits in the bank account of one Mr. Neil Master. 8.1 The issue relates to addition made on account of cash found deposited in the bank account of one Mr. Neil Master which was alleged to be operated by the assessee for laundering his unaccounted income/money and the source of the cash deposited remained Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 17 unexplained. Therefore, all cash deposits in this bank account of Mr.Neil Master were added to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act in different assessment years, which amounted to as under: Asstt.Year Cash Deposits added(Rs.) 2011-12 12,25,000/- 2012-13 15,94,000/- 2013-14 18,87,900/- 2014-15 28,63,000/- 2015-16 9,88,500/- 2016-17 8,16,500/- 2017-18 24,46,500/- 8.2 The total addition, thus, made in the seven years before us amounted to Rs.1,18,21,400/-. 8.3 The Department’s allegation that the bank account of Mr. Neil Master was actually being operated by the assessee rests on several documents pertaining to the said bank account found with the assessee during search. Cash deposit slips of the said bank account of Mr. Neil Master, Cheques signed by Mr. Neil Master and even notings of transactions carried out in the said bank account in a diary maintained by the assessee were found during search. The assessee’s explanation that he had entered into a joint venture agreement with Mr. Neil Master and for the said purpose had contributed both by way of cash and cheque which were deposited in the bank account of Mr. Neil Master and the cash deposit slips pertaining to which were found during search, was thrashed by the Department finding the Joint Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 18 Venture explanation/agreement to be a sham since it did not contain even the basic details of a business agreement such as the purpose / business to be carried out, the form in which to be carried and contribution of each partner to the joint venture etc. ,the place from which it is to be carried out, the contribution of the partners to the JV etc. The department also noted that the signature of Mr. Neil Master on the said agreement did not match with his signatures in the department data base. There was no evidence also filed of any activity carried out in the JV since formation. The confirmations and affidavits of Mr. Neil Master submitted to the authorities below, i.e the Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT(A) were rejected since the veracity of the same could not be established as all attempts made by the Department to locate Mr. Neil Master at all available addresses failed. The ld. CIT(A) noted that in assessment year 2010-11, on an identical issue in the case of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) had directed the AO to verify the bonafide of the confirmations and affidavits submitted by him. The Ld.CIT(A) noted that despite several attempts made by the AO to locate Mr. Neil Master ,he could not be found at any of the available addresses. He held that the assessee being found in possession of incriminating documents, onus was on him to provide correct address of Mr. Neil Master to enable verification of the explanation regarding the presence of the documents of Neil Master with the assesee. Therefore, he held that the assessee had no valid explanation for being in possession of documents relating to banking transactions carried out in the bank account of Mr. Neil Master and therefore the presumption that the assessee was operating these bank accounts was correct and all cash deposited therein was treated as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act in the absence of explanation of the source of the same. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 19 8.4 We have gone through the orders of authorities below and the relevant documents pertaining to the issue placed before us in voluminous paper books submitted during the course of hearing. The challenge by the assessee, as noted above is, with respect to the finding of the Revenue authorities that the bank account of Mr. Neil Master was being operated by the assessee and the cash deposited therein was his unaccounted income/money, source of which remained unexplained. 8.5 The entire issue, we find, begins with electronic document found by way of tally data, during search conducted on the assessee revealing cash in hand with the assessee on the date of search being Rs.2 Crs odd. This fact is recorded in the special audit report , which special audit was directed in the case of the assessee u/s 142(2A) of the Act. The assessee was however found to have cash in hand of Rs.7,14,700/- and in his statement recorded during search u/s 132(4) of the Act on 29 & 30-11-2016, the assessee attributed Rs.1.00 Crs cash in hand as having been given to Mr.Neil Master for investment in a joint venture. For the remaining 50lacs cash in hand, the assessee offered no explanation. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 20 8.6 The statement further reveals that when the assessee was asked to explain when the cash was given to Neil Master, he stated that it was given in preceding years on different dates. The assessee was asked to reconcile his statement that when cash was given to Neil Master in preceding years, how could it justify cash in hand on the date of search as per tally data. The assessee had nothing to say in reply. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 21 8.7 The Special audit report also reveals no plausible explanation given by the assessee for the investment in the Joint Venture made by him. 8.8 The above facts, though not part of assessment order, were revealed on going through the special Audit report which the Ld.Counsel was asked to produce before us and on going through the contents of the statement recorded of Mr. Neil Master, copy of which was filed in the Paper Book placed before us in the common P.B at page no.34-64. 8.9 Clearly the assessee was not coming out clean with respect to his explanation of cash in hand found in the tally data of Rs.2 Crs, stating at one point to have invested Rs.1 Cr with Neil Master, (probably meaning thereby that cash was given to him on the same day as date of search and therefore remaining reflected as cash in hand) and in the same statement stating cash being invested with him in preceding years. Even before the Special auditor no plausible explanation was given by the assessee. 8.10 To top it, all documents pertaining to banking transactions in the bank account of Neil Master were found with the assessee during search action conducted on the assessee, as in; • cash deposit slips amounting to Rs. 18,58,000/- • noting in diary of transactions carried out in the said bank account and • cheques signed by Mr. Neil Master amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/-. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 22 8.11 The onus clearly was on the assessee to explain why these documents pertaining to a third party were found with him. 8.12 The explanation of the assessee, it is a matter of record, was that he had entered into joint venture agreement with Mr. Neil Master and the cash deposit slips amounting to Rs. 18,58,000/- were his contribution in the joint venture by way of cash: that in all he had contributed an amount of Rs. 92, 43,000/- to the joint venture out of which Rs. 18,58,000/- was in cash (P.B page No.34 of Common P.B- 2) and the balance by way of cheques sourced from entities belonging to the assessee. 8.13 This explanation surely does not ring true , considering the fact that in the statement recorded during search the assessee stated to have contributed Rs. 1 Cr in cash in the JV, while during assessment proceedings he stated contributing in cash Rs.18.58 lacs. 8.14 For the signed cheques found of Mr. Neil Master the assessee explained that these were taken as security from Mr. Neil Master for the contribution made by the assessee in the joint venture. There was no explanation furnished for the notings in the diary of the transactions carried out in the bank account of Mr. Neil Master. The assessee submitted confirmations and affidavit of Mr. Neil Master but the fact remains that Mr. Neil Master was neither produced by the assessee for establishing the veracity of these documents nor was the Department able to locate him at all available addresses. 8.15 The findings of the Revenue authorities we have noted is that the Joint venture agreement was a sham, for the reason that the said agreement did not contain even the basic details of a business agreement, such as the specific nature of business to be carried on; the form in which it is to be carried, whether AOP or firm; the place Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 23 from where it is to be carried; the contribution of the joint venture partners in the business. This joint venture agreement is dated 29- 09-2009 (P.B page No.30-31 of Common P.B -2) Search was conducted on the assessee on 29-11- 2016. Assessment proceedings were completed on 31-12-2019.... and first appellate proceedings were concluded and order passed on 08-11-2023. The Revenue authorities have noted that the assessee furnished no evidence of any activity being carried out in the joint venture. No expenses were demonstrated by the assessee to have been incurred in the joint venture. Besides no books of accounts were also found to be maintained of the joint venture. These aforestated facts are not controverted before us. 8.16 Therefore, without going into any other infirmity in the joint venture agreement noted by the AO, such as mis-match of signature of Neil Master, since the assessee was unable to establish in any way the existence of a joint venture between him and Mr. Neil Master despite the lapse of 5 years since formation of the joint venture and the search action undertaken on the assessee and another 7 years during which the assessment and first appellate proceedings were conducted, it is an open and shut case that the assessee miserably failed to substantiate its explanation of having entered into joint agreement with Mr. Neil Master. As rightly pointed out by the authorities below if there was any such agreement between him and Mr. Neil Master there must have been some activity conducted in it resulting in inflow or outflow of money in the same ,duly accounted for in books of accounts maintained for the joint venture, none of which was produced as evidence. Except for the fact of cash and cheques being deposited, that too surprisingly not in a bank account of the joint venture i.e. separate bank account for the joint venture Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 24 purpose, but in the bank of Mr. Neil Master, no other transactions have been shown to have conducted with respect to the joint venture undertaken by the assessee with Mr. Neil Master. Therefore, the assessee’s claim of having entered into a joint venture agreement with Mr. Neil Master, we agree with the Ld.CIT(A), has been rightly rejected as untrue /unsubstantiated. 8.17 The contention therefore that the cash deposit slips and cheques of Neil Master found with the assessee were in relation to the joint venture agreement, is also, we hold correctly, found by the revenue authorities to be completely unsubstantiated. 8.18 The explanation is not true also for the reason noted by us that the assessee made contradictory/self-defeating statements with respect to investment made in the JV with Neil Master. He has stated to have invested Rs.1 Cr in cash in the JV with Neil Master immediately on the date of search, but subsequently gave a contradictory reply of having invested the cash in preceding years. Moreover during assessment the assessee has stated to have invested only Rs.18.58 lacs in cash in the JV. 8.19 What is clearly evident from the above is that the assesse is not coming with clean hands on the issue of his connection with Neil Master. He is giving statements suiting the situation, which is turning out to be contradictory and only depicting that the assessee is attempting to hide more than reveal the facts relating to the issue. 8.20 The existence of a JV with Neil Master, we hold, therefore has been rightly found by the Ld.CIT(A) to be incorrect and unsubstantiated. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 25 8.21 Having said so what remains is that there was no reason for the documents and notings pertaining to the transactions in the bank account of Mr. Neil Master, being available with the assessee. Therefore, the presumption of the Department that the bank account was being used by the assessee for depositing his own cash remains uncontroverted and we hold therefore is correct. The assessee has no valid explanation to offer for the presence of these documents pertaining to a third party with him and the only presumption which can be drawn therefrom, as rightly done by the authorities below, is that this bank account of Mr. Neil Master was being operated by the assessee. 8.22 Coming to the confirmations and affidavits of Mr. Neil Master which were submitted during assessment and appellate proceedings, the same needs to be outrightly rejected for the reason that Mr. Neil Master in the confirmation and affidavits has confirmed what we have found the assessee to have been unable to establish with evidence; of having entered into a joint venture with the assessee and the assessee having contributed to the joint venture in cash and by way of cheque. His confirmations and affidavits are not substantiated with any evidence, therefore these confirmations and affidavits carry no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. 8.23 Even otherwise it is a fact on record that Mr. Neil Master was unable to be located at any of the available addresses with the Department despite rigorous attempt made by the AO while checking the veracity of these documents. The CIT(A) notes that when the affidavit of Mr. Neil Master was given to the Assessing Officer for his report, he attempted to check the veracity of these documents and issued notices to Mr. Neil Master at addresses available with him i.e. in his PAN details (addresses available in the department data base) Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 26 and also address mentioned in his affidavit and both the notices issued to him remained un-served with the remark “not known/not sufficient address”. The Assessing Officer’s remand report notes that a letter was sent to Mr.Neil Master on email address provided by the assessee, to which response was received. The AO noted from the said response that Neil Master stayed in rented premises but on physical verification of the premises, he was not found to occupy the same. Even the persons present in the building were noted to have stated not to have heard of any person by the name of Neil Master occupying the premises.(Page 43-46 of CIT(A) order for A.Y 2011-12 ). 8.24 It is clearly evident that there is no cooperation from the assessee in producing Mr.Neil Master so as to enable the Department to check the veracity of the confirmations and affidavits filed by him. No attempt is being made to either produce him or provide his correct address to the Department. This is particularly relevant since Mr Neil Master is the assesses witness. It is the assesses case that he has entered into a JV with Neil Master for which purpose he has contributed Rs.1 Cr. Therefore, Neil Master is the assesses witness and the onus therefore is on the assessee to produce him before the Revenue authorities for enabling verification of his explanation by the authorities. 8.25 Further, we have noted the assessee was aware of notices issued to Mr. Neil Master returning un-served. Mr. Neil Master is allegedly a business associate of the assessee. The assessee is repeatedly procuring confirmations and affidavits from him. So clearly he is in touch with Mr. Neil Master and knows his whereabout. Being the assesses witness and the assessee also being aware of his whereabouts, the assessee we hold, has miserably failed in the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 27 discharge of his onus of producing him before the Revenue authorities for verification. 8.26 In the light of above, it is evident the assessee had no explanation to offer for the documents relating to the bank account of Mr. Neil Master being present with him. The presumption of the Department therefore that the was operating Neil Masters bank account is we hold, correct. There can be no other presumption in this scenario where a person is found to be in possession of documents and notings of a bank account of some other person for which he has no plausible explanation to offer, but that he himself is operating the other person’s bank account. 8.27 The cash deposited therein, has we hold, rightly been added in the hands of the assessee on account of the source of the same remaining unexplained. The order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the findings of the Assessing Officer that the bank account of Mr. Neil Master was being operated by the assessee for depositing his unaccounted cash is accordingly upheld by us and addition made in the respective years of cash deposited in the impugned amount confirmed. 8.28 The arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee before us, we find merits no consideration. He has argued that the documents found with him of Mr. Neil Masters bank account were not incriminating materials. But that is incorrect since there was no reason for an unconnected third persons bank account documents and details being found with the assessee for no plausible reason. They do constitute incriminating material. He has argued that the explanation of the assessee of there being a joint venture with Mr. Neil Master has been wrongly rejected finding mismatch of signature of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 28 Mr. Neil Master. This argument also merits no consideration since the joint venture explanation falls flat for other reasons as noted by us without taking into consideration of the fact of the signatures of Mr. Neil Master not matching with the signature in other documents. He has argued that the department was in possession of information about Mr. Neil Master and could have procured all information from public detail, i.e MCA, or could have issued summons to him to be present by the authorities below and having failed to do so no adverse view can be taken about the genuineness of Mr. Neil Master and his confirmations and affidavits submitted. This argument also merits no consideration since as discussed above by us Mr. Neil Master was the witness of the assessee and the onus was on the assessee to produce him before the Revenue authorities for establishing the veracity of confirmations and affidavits furnished by him. Further dehors the fact of Neil Master being produced before the Revenue authorities, we have rejected assesses explanation of JV with him as totally unsubstantiated. 8.29 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has stated that in any case the source of cash deposited was explained out of cash in hand available with him from the cash flow statement submitted to the authorities below ,who had accepted the said statement for the purposes of deleting addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of cash found in his various bank accounts. 8.30 We do not find any merit in this argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee because on going through the cash summary, copy of which was filed before also, the said summary only reflects cash paid to Neil Master without any corroboration of this cash paid to Neil Master with cash deposited in the bank account of Neil Master. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 29 8.31 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has also contended that there was no relevance of the joint venture agreement with the respect to the issue raised of the cash deposited in the bank account of Neil Master. He contended that this reflects total non-application of mind by lower authorities. We do not find any merit in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee also because the issue of joint venture was raised by the assessee itself explaining the documents pertaining to the bank account of Neil Master being found with him due to his connection with Neil Master on account of joint venture agreement entered into with him and investment being made by him in the same both in cash and by way of cheque. 8.32 Arguments were also made to the effect that Neil Master had confirmed the fact of operating his bank account and also the fact of assessee having contributed to their joint venture both in cash and cheque, pointing out that both confirmation through email and by way of affidavit of Ms. Neil Master was furnished and also pointing out to the fact that the Department had verified it by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) to ICICI Bank that the bank account belonged to Neil Master. This argument also merits no consideration since authorities below have recorded the fact that several attempts were made to establish the veracity of the facts and confirmations of Neil Master by seeking his presence. He was not found at any of the available addresses. These documents, we hold, have no evidentiary value in the absence of their veracity being established. 8.33 In the light of the above, this issue of addition made in the case of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in the bank account of one Mr. Neil Master as unexplained money of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act is decided against the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 30 9. ISSUE NO.4 Addition made on account of cash allegedly received from Susamma Varghese amounting to Rs.17 lakhs pertaining to Asstt.Year 2014-15 alone. 9.1 Facts of the case are that the AO noted that the seized material comprised of a handwritten note signed by the assessee regarding transaction of Rs.17,00,000/- in cash from a person named Susamma Varghese. The assessee, before the Special Auditor had stated that it was a temporary receipt given to a client who had left the cash with him & which was not his income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that said person was a client settled abroad and that from the receipt itself it was clear that said amount was received for making investments on her behalf. However, the assessee’s contention was not accepted by the AO on the ground that he had filed different replies at different occasions and the AO found that from the seized document it was clear that the assessee had received such money. The AO also noted that notice issued u/s.133(6) through e-mail to Ms.Sussamma had remained un- compiled with. 9.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee claimed Mrs. Susamma Varghese to be a close friend and client since 20 years and married to a foreigner and that she had received sale proceeds from antique furniture which was lying with her and as she was travelling, she left the cash with him for safe keeping. The assessee had also referred to her e-mail dated 16.12.2019 wherein also similar facts were explained. On this basis the assessee claimed that receipt of money mentioned in the loose paper was not his income and no addition could be made. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 31 9.3 The ld.CIT(A) after considering the documents, based on which the addition was made in the hands of the assessee, confirmed the addition noting that the document clearly suggested the assessee to have received cash of Rs.17 lakhs and the said cash was not recorded in the books of the assessee. Also, he found no evidence being filed by the assessee to support his contention that cash was available with her out of the sale of antique furniture which was kept with the assessee. The finding of ld.CIT(A) in this regard are at para 14.3 to 14.4 of the order for A.Y 2014-15, as under: “14.3 On careful consideration of relevant facts on record, it is observed that following loose paper was part of material found and seize during the course of search. 14.4 The above referred seized material clearly suggests that appellant had received Rs.17,00,000 as cash and such cash is not recorded in books of account. The appellant has heavly relied upon reply filed by Susamma Varghese wherein she has stated that cash available with her out of sale of antique furniture was kept with appellant It is observed that appellant has not submitted any documentary evidences to prove that there was any sale of property by Susamma or there was sale of antique furniture as chimed by her. The appellant has not filed her return of income for relevant period to prove that such cash received on sale of furniture or sale proceeds of flat was already offered to tax. It is observed that loose material found during the course of search and relied upon by the AO clearly states that appellant has received such cash and no other documentary evidences were found during the course of search which can support the argument that amount mentioned in seized material was towards sale Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 32 of antique furniture as claimed by appellant. Considering all these facts and referring to seized material, addition of Rs.17,00,000/- made by the AO is confirmed Thus, the ground of appeal no. 8 is dismissed.” 9.4 We have heard both the parties, and we find that the order of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.17 lakhs in the hands of the assessee, based on the receipt found with the assessee acknowledging receipt of the said amount from one Ms.Susamma Varghese, is not correct. 9.5 The document which was found with the assessee, and which is reproduced above as part of para 14.3 of the Ld.CIT(A)’s order, itself clearly reveals the fact that the amount was received from Susamma by the assessee for investing. There can be no question of attributing the amount so received as income of the assessee. The contents of the documents are self-speaking and clearly reveal the said amount to have been received from Ms. Susuma by the assessee for investing and not as his income. Any document found has to be read as a whole, while interpreting its contents. Further, it is fact on record that even Ms. Sussama had confirmed the said fact of having given the amount of Rs.17 lakhs to the assessee for investing on her behalf via email, which was sent in response to the notice issued to her by the AO under section 133(6) of the Act. There can be no case, therefore, for treating the impugned amount as income of the assessee. The entire case of the ld.CIT(A) rests on the point that source of giving this amount by Mrs.Sushma has not been proved with documentary evidence. This, in effect means that the source of source has not been proved which is clearly not the responsibility or onus of the assessee. This is a document found during search on the assessee and is clearly a receipt of amount given by Ms.Sussamma to the assessee mentioning even the purpose for the same, as investing in her name. There is no occasion to doubt this document in any way, Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 33 since it was found during search on the assessee and there was no scope for manipulating its contents. As long as the document itself is speaking enough and the contents are confirmed by the person who has given the amount to the assessee, the assesses onus to explain the document stands discharged. There is no further onus on the assessee to prove the source of the source which had given money to the assessee. 9.6 In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the addition made of Rs.17 lakhs on account of receipt found with the assessee, acknowledging the said amount from one Susamma. The addition, is therefore directed to be deleted. 10. ISSUE NO.5 The addition made under section 69C of the Act on account of noting pertaining to cash transactions and transactions through Angadia in the seized material. 10.1 The order of the Revenue authorities reveal that addition on account of impugned issue was made in Asstt.Year 2013-14 and Asstt.Year 2014-15 amounting to Rs.23,82,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- respectively. 10.2 The facts relating to the issue are at para 12.1 and 12.2 of the order of the ld.CIT(A) in Asstt.Year 2014-15. “12.1 While passing the Assessment Order, the AO has observed that seized material found during the course of search, contained several systematic and date wise entries of transactions made in cash and through Angadia. He also observed that such seized material also includes transactions made in cash and same are cross referenced with transactions with ICICI Bank account of Neil Master hence it can be concluded that entries with narration \"Angadia\" is relating to transfer of cash to some person through Angadia. The contention of Appellant regarding error for mentioning amount in \"crore\" while issuing show cause notice was accepted by AO. The AO observed that Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 34 as appellant had failed to provide sources of such cash entries in assessment proceedings, amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is considered as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. 10.3 The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO noting that the seized documents clearly mentioned cash and angadia against the impugned amounts; that these documents contained details of other transactions also, for example, those relating to the bank transactions conducted with the Neil Master, which was found duly recorded in his bank account; that therefore contents of the seized material were correct; that the assessee had not discharged his onus of proving the source of cash, and that as per the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act where any documents are found during search from the premises of the assesse it is presumed to belong to him, and is in his hand writing. The ld.CIT(A) held the cash noted in the seized material as belonging to the assessee, source of which was not explained, and accordingly, confirmed the addition in the hands of the assessee under section 69C of the Act. His finding in this regard are contained at para 12.3 to 12.6 of the order as under: 12.3 On careful consideration of relevant facts on record, it is observed that in show cause notice issued during the course of assessment proceedings, at para 10, the AO has referred to various seized material found during the course of search (Page no 119 to 122 of Annexure A-1 of Party A-9 ) which contained notings relating to \" Angadia\". The AO had observed that amount mentioned therein in crore and on such amount 1% commission is required to be added to total income. However, while passing the assessment order, the AO has accepted appellant's explanation that amount mentioned in seized material is not in crore hence grievance of appellant to that extent is resolved in assessment order itself. 12.4 While passing the assessment order, the AO has observed that the appellant has not explained such seized material and sources of such cash \" Angadia\" as referred in seized material hence he had made addition of Rs.1,60,000/- as mentioned in seized material. It is relevant to refer to such seized material as referred in show cause notice issued by the AO. xxx xxx xxx xxx Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 35 12.4.1 It is observed that seized material found during the course of search, referred supra and as provided to appellant in show cause notice contained the word \" cash\", \"Angadia\" but appellant has not provided any explanation of such entries along with sources of such cash in assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings. As seized material is found during the course of search at appellant's premises, onus is on appellant to prove contents of such seized material. The AO has also observed that there are entries relating to cash deposited in ICICI Bank of account of Neil Master which tallies with such bank account hence entries and notings mentioned in such seized material is actual transactions and this contention of the AO is not rebutted by appellant. As appellant has failed to explain the nature and sources of entries \"Angadia\" as mentioned in seized material AO was correct in holding that same represents unaccounted cash expenditure of appellant. It is observed that as per the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act any document found during the course of the search from the premises of the assessee is presumed to be belonging to him and in his hand writing. The relevant provision is reproduced herein below: \"(4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been sighed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person’s handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested; that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or ]\" This presumption is rebuttable and onus was on the assessee to produce a report from hand writing expert that said paper is not in his hand writing and provide name of the person who has written the said paper, or paper belongs to whom and what are contents of such seized material but no such documentary evidences have been filed except this argument that the AO has made addition on surmises and conjecture, hence addition made by the AO based upon notings in seized material is confirmed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 36 10.4 We have heard both the parties. We see no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A). It is not disputed that the seized material Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 37 contained noting of amounts, against which cash/ angadia and date is mentioned. This document also contained noting pertaining to other transactions, as relating to Neil Master, which were corroborated with entries in the bank account of the Neil Master. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Revenue authorities that the contents of the documents were true and reflected actual transaction undertaken, is we hold correct. 10.5 The assessee, undoubtedly, has not offered any explanation of the entry /noting recorded or for that matter, the source of cash noted in the documents. The ld.CIT(A), we hold, has rightly applied the presumption provided under section 132(4A) of the Act of the said documents as belonging to the assessee, and its contents being true and correct, and accordingly confirmed the addition in the hands of the assessee. The additions, therefore, made u/s 69C of the Act relating to notings in document seized of cash/angadia are upheld. 11. ISSUE NO.6 Addition on account of unaccounted sale proceeds of immovable property. 11.1 The impugned addition relates to Asstt.Year 2015-16. 11.2 The facts of the case as emanates from the orders of the Revenue authorities below are as under: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 38 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 39 11.3 The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition noting that the documents clearly reveal transfer of rights in the plot to Shri SL Bhatia. The WhatsApp chat between the assessee and the SL Bhatia revealed receiving the amount of Rs.50 lakhs against the sale of plot, which was deposited in the account of one Shri Gurusharan Singh Chauhan who withdrew the amount immediately in cash, and therefore, the correct inference to be drawn is that the impugned rights were transferred by the assessee to Shri SL Bhatia of Rs.50 lakhs. The ld.CIT(A) noted that even otherwise, the assessee had no proper explanation to give for the amount transferred by Shri SL Bhatia in the account of Shri Gurusharan Singh Chauhan, which though he claimed as loan given by the SL Bhatia to Shri Gurusharan Singh Chauhan, however, no confirmation in this regard was submitted by Shri Gurusharan Singh Chauhan, and neither any reasons given by Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 40 Shri Chauhan for withdrawing the amount in cash. His finding in this regard are contained at para 12.3 to 12.5 of the order as under: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 41 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 42 11.4. We have heard both the parties and we see no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A). We have noted that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly interpreted the document found during the search, revealing the transfer of rights in land by the assessee to SL Bhatia. Though, the assessee has denied any such transfer taken place, but the ld.CIT(A) has noted a very pertinent fact that undeniably and admittedly the assessee has received two amounts of Rs.20,000/- each for the transfer of the said rights in land. Therefore, there can be no denial of the fact that the rights in land were transferred by the assessee to Shri SL Bhatia. The fact noted by the authority below that there were whatsapp exchange of message between the SL Bhatia and the assessee, revealing mode of transfer of funds for the impugned transaction to the account of Shri Gurusharan Singh Chauhan, which were transferred to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs is also fact on record. This Rs.50 lakhs, deposited in the account of Shri Gurusharan Singh Chauhan was withdrawn immediately after the deposits and no reasons were given by Shri Gurusharan Singh Chauhan for withdrawing the same. The assessee’s contention that the amount was given by SL Bhatia to Shri Gurusharan Singh Chauhan as a loan, Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 43 we have noted was rightly rejected by the ld.CIT(A), noting that Shri Gurusharan Singh Chauhan submitted no confirmation of the amount being advanced to him by way of loan. 11.5 In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A) treating the amount of Rs.50 lakhs, to have been received by the assessee on account of transfer of rights in land and hence taxable in his hand. 12. ISSUE NO.7 The addition made on account with withdrawal from the account of Environmental Research & Development Centre (“ERDC” for short). 12.1 The orders of the authorities below reveal that the case against the Revenue with respect to “ERDC” Trust was that the assessee was operating the bank account of the Trust for routing his own money, and therefore, all withdrawals from the bank account of “ERDC” trust in all the impugned assessment years before us was treated as income of the assessee, and brought to tax under section 69A of the Act. The quantum of addition so made in all the assessment years before us as under: Asstt.Year Cash Deposits added(Rs.) 2011-12 12,25,000/- 2012-13 15,94,000/- 2013-14 18,87,900/- 2014-15 28,63,000/- 2015-16 9,88,500/- 2016-17 8,16,500/- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 44 2017-18 24,46,500/- 12.2 The Revenue’s case rests on the documents found during search and information in its possession which revealed that the assessee had fraudulently taken over the rights of the Trust from the trustees, Mrs. Shivangi Panchal and her sister Parul Modi. During search, an MOU dated 26.10.2013 was found, which mentioned that Mrs.Shivangi Panchal and her sister Parul Modi would surrender all the rights (including rights in land on lease from Government) as trustees to “ERDC” Trust in favour of the assessee, and his son Mr.Huzan Sethna. The AO was aware that Mrs.Shivangi Panchal and Parul Modi had made a complaint that the assessee had opened account in the name of the Trust without their knowledge, and with mala fide intention had obtained signatures of both of them. The bank records of the said Trust revealed unauthorised transaction of Rs.6.85 crores to have been taken place, and huge amounts withdrawn from the bank account by Vijay Solanki, who is a peon in Apaji Amin & Co., LLP, the firm in which the assessee is a partner. Vijay Solanki in his statement recorded during the search admitted that all withdrawals made by him from the bank account of “ERDC” trust was on the instruction of the assessee, and the assessee also admitted in the statement recorded during the search that the amounts withdrawn by Vijay Solanki were either re-deposited in another account or used by him, and not recorded in his books of accounts. Besides the MOU, donation receipt aggregating to Rs.1,71,65,000/- in the name of the trust were found in the possession of the assessee, entries of which were recorded in the bank account of the Trust with South India Bank. Majority of the donations of Rs.1,54,65,000/- were from other parties and the remaining donations were received from the assessee’s wife and the firm in which he was a partner. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 45 12.3 The AO on the basis of the material found during the search, and the information in his possession, as also the admission of the assessee and his employee, was of the view that the bank account of the Trust was being operated by the assessee for routing his own money. When confronted with the same, the assessee contended that he was only an auditor of the Trust for the reason that the donations receipts were found in his possession. The AO, however, was not convinced with the reply of the assessee, and accordingly, he subjected to tax the amounts withdrawn from the said bank in cash in each of the impugned years under section 69A of the Act. 12.4 The matter was carried in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) where the assessee vehemently contested the addition made. The ld.CIT(A) however noted that in the case of the Trust itself, for all the impugned years before us, the AO had held to the Trust to be not carrying out any charitable activities, and subjected its entire receipts to tax. The ld.CIT(A), however, in the case of the Trust, based on several evidences before him, found that the bank account of the Trust had been misused by Tehmul Sethna, the assessee before us, for routing his own money, and held therefore that the income, if any, was liable to be taxed in the hands of Shri Tehmul Sethana, and not the Trust, and accordingly he deleted all the additions made in the hands of the Trust. Nothing this finding of the first appellate authority, in the case of the Trust, the ld.CIT(A), therefore held that the assessee had no case, and accordingly confirmed the additions made in the hands of the assessee. 12.5 Before proceeding, it is pertinent to mention the critical finding of the ld.CIT(A) while passing his order in the case of the Trust. Based Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 46 on which, he held the entire amount received by the Trust as belonging to the assessee before us, i.e. Tehmul Sethana. i) The ld.CIT(A) noted that Shri Tehmul Sethana had himself admitted by furnishing an affidavit in this regard that he had single handedly operated, transacted, managed and dealt with all the financial transactions of the Trust. He had admitted that the trustees of the Trust were never informed of the activities carried out by him. He had further stated that he had routinely signed and issued cheques from the saving bank account of South India Bank of the Trust, and he had declared and accepted that the trustees of the Trust, in any manner, be not held liable for making payment of any amount to persons including income-tax authorities on behalf of the trust; ii) Shri Vijay Solanki, as an employee of Tehmul Sethana, had, in his statement recorded on oath under section 131 and 132(4) of the Act, stated that he had deposited and withdrawn money from the Trust account only on the directions of the Shri Sethana. He had further stated that thereafter the cash so withdrawn from the bank account was handed over to Shri Sethana immediately. ii) During the course of search operation, statement of Tehmul Sethna was also recorded on oath under section 132(4) of the Act on the deposits made and cash withdrawn from the account of the Trust, and in his statement, Shri Sethna had categorically accepted the fact that he had received cash withdrawn from the Trust account, and also confessed that he either re-deposited such cash to his own account or spent it over. He had also Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 47 stated that he had not recorded these transactions in his books of accounts. iii) Shri Tehmul Sethan’s case for Asstt.Year 2010-11 was reopened under section 148 of the Act, which notice was challenged by Shri Sethana before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, and the AO, in his affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court, had stated that Shri Sethena was operating bank account of various persons including the trust, and modus operandi of cash withdrawal from the Trust bank account was also explained. The AO had stated that the saving bank account of the Trust was being controlled by Shri Sethna and money withdrawn was being utilised by him. iv) The Trustees of the Trust had filed an FIR against Shri Sethana and the anticipatory bail of Shri Sethna was rejected, and therefore, Shri Sethana was arrested. The Trustees had stated in the FIR that Shri Sethana had forged signatures of the Trust, which is evident from the forensic report referred by the Police Department. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Ahmedabad, vide his order dated 9.3.2023 had punished Shri Sethana and imprisoned along with fine, under various sections of Indian Penal Code, holding that he had transacted crores of rupees in the account of the Trust, and used the account of the Trust for commissioning of the offenses. v) The Trust had filed a complaint against Sethna before the Director (Discipline), Disciplinary Committee under section 21B of Chartered Accountants Act, 2016 and subsequent order dated 15.2.2022 wherein the ICAI had held that Shri Sethna had abused his professional Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 48 relationship for personal gain from initial period of creation of the Trust and for wrongfully gaining benefits, he created various documents, forged signature of the Trust and misused documents entrusted to him during his professional engagement with the Trust. 12.6 Having noted so, before us the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that the ld.CIT(A) in his order had made certain observations which are either false or he had travelled beyond his jurisdiction and relied on the documents which were not part of the case record. The same find mention at para 15 of his written submissions dated 5.3.2025 filed before us. 12.7 The ld.counsel for the assessee has nothing to say to the findings of the ld.CIT(A) against the assessee in his order passed in the case of the Trust, mentioning all the factors which lead to his conclusion that the Trust was being fraudulently used by the assessee for his own purpose, which included the admission of the assessee itself to this fact both by way of detailed affidavit categorically stating so, and has also his statement recorded during the search, and the statement of his employee, Shri Vijay Solanki, coupled with various complaints lodged against the assessee by the trustees of the Trust, by way of filing FIR. 12.8 Without displacing this critical finding, we hold that there can be no case for the assessee for saving his skin and escaping the addition made in his hand on account of usage of bank account of the Trust for his own purpose. His argument that the AO had never observed Trust had filed complaint against the assessee, and the ld.CIT(A) therefore had erred in stating so, we find, is of no consequence, because, it is not case of the assessee, denying the fact Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 49 that any complaint was filed against him under the IPC, which stands recorded in the CIT(A)’s order passed in the case of the Trust. His only argument was that the ld.CIT(A) had noted the AO in his case to have recorded this fact while, he had not actually recorded any such fact. This argument is flimsy which does not take away the basic fact that an FIR was filed against the assessee under IPC. Whether, the AO mentioned it or did not mention it, is of no consequence. 12.9 His contention that the ld.CIT(A) has travelled beyond his jurisdiction by relying on the documents which are not part of the case record, we find, is a flimsy argument made by the ld.counsel for the assessee before us. 12.10 Firstly, the ld.CIT(A) has relied on the finding of the First Appellate authority in the case of the Trust, where all the documents placed before it were referred by the ld.CIT(A) to arrive at a finding that the Trust was being misused through Tehmul Sethana. The ld.CIT(A) in the present case, has relied on the finding of the first appellate authority in the case of the Trust. We do not find any infirmity in the same. 12.11 The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee is also that it has not been given any opportunity of rebuttal by the ld.CIT(A) while referring to those documents. Be that so, even before us, the assessee has not been able to show, how it would have rebutted all the documents, which were relied upon in the case of the Trust. Not a single contention has been made before us, rebutting the finding of the ld.CIT(A) in the case of the Trust. Therefore, this argument of the ld.counsel for the assessee also merits no consideration. 12.12 The ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the order of the First Appellate Authority in the case of the assessee for Asstt.Year 2010-11 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 50 on the issue and had observed that the ITAT had allowed the assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld.CIT(A) in the said year on technical ground, and therefore, the merits of the addition have not been adjudicated by the ITAT. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that this finding of the ld.CIT(A) was incorrect. That if the order was held to be invalid by the ITAT, all discussions on merits also was of no consequence, and cannot be relied upon. 12.13 We are not in agreement with the ld.counsel for the assessee on this score also, and the reasons are two folds: i) Any finding on merits in an order which is otherwise held to be void or invalidly passed, does not lose its credibility. ii) Even if we accept the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee that since the CIT(A)’s order for Asstt.Year 2010- 11, passed in the case of the assessee was held to be invalid by the ITAT, and therefore, the discussion on merits in the said order is of no relevance, we find it has no impact on the outcome of the decision on the issue, since the ld.CIT(A) in the present case, has largely relied on the finding of the First Appellate Authority in the case of the Trust for all the impugned years before us, and has not solely relied on the order passed in the case of the assessee for Asstt.Year 2010-11. 12.14 In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee, against the addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of withdrawals made from “ERDC” Trust account and dismiss the same. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 51 13. ISSUE NO.8 Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act. 13.1 The order of the ld.CIT(A)reveals that no such ground was raised by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A). In the assessment framed, however, deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80G of the Act was disallowed by the AO on account of the assessee being unable to substantiate its claim with necessary documentary evidences. Considering that the impugned ground does not arise from the order of the ld.CIT(A) and further even on merits, since the finding of the AO of the assessee being unable to substantiate its claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act remained uncontroverted before us, we see no merit in the ground raised by the assessee and we the dismiss the same. 14. ISSUE NO.9 Commission received by the assessee 14.1 Addition pertaining to the above issue, was made in the assessment framed for the Asst.Year 2016-17 alone. The facts relating to the issue are that while passing the assessment order, the AO has observed that during the course of search various messages were found and reference of providing accommodation/bogus entries, cash transactions through ‘angadia’ etc. is also mentioned. The summary of such chats were provided to the assessee in show cause notice dated 10.12.2019 which noted by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order at page no.65 is reproduced hereinbelow: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 52 14.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has stated that as data was in possession of the AO, onus was on the AO to find out or investigate on such message. The AO observed that the assessee had submitted confirmation of few parties like, Bharatbhai, Yuvraj, Sebastin Raja or Narendra Shroff but the AO found that all letters were in the same fonts, having common syntax, complete address and identification of such person has not been given, even through the persons making such declarations reside at different places like Chennai and Surendranagar. The assessee has not mentioned how he obtained such details and fact was that some of these persons had not responded to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act. The AO has also rebutted argument of the AO that such messages were replied by the AO, and even provided necessary details. As assessee has not satisfactorily explained these transactions, the AO made addition of Rs.36,000/- being 1% as commission income in the hands of the assessee. 14.3 Further, during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has relied upon letter written by Bharat Shah wherein he has stated that the assessee has not earned anything from these transactions, hence, no such addition should be made. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 53 14.4 The ld.CIT(A), however, dismissed the assessee’s contention holding at para 13.4 and 13.5 of his order as under: “13.4 On careful consideration of relevant facts on records, it is observed that various messages were found during the course of search hence onus is on the AO to explain the nature of the transactions. The appellant in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) has not explained the exact nature of such messages or what type of services are provided. During the course of assessment proceedings, appellant has not explained the nature of such messages. It is observed that if appellant is not at all involved in such transactions, why other party would message him like (i) \"apollo 'rtgs ami 1788806 thay che parti kare pachi utr no msg karjo pl\"-Why Bharat Anant would ask appellant to submit details of RTGS (ii) \"Rtgs aaje na thavanu hoy to 1356715 cash mngavi lejo 5 vage hu aavish party nu deal aaje puru karvu pade tem che pi reply me I wait\"... The message clearly speaks about refund of cash against RTGS if not done. If appellant is not at all involved why other party would say if RTGS is not to be done, please receive cash 13.5 The contents of such messages itself suggest that appellant was involved in such transactions and as appellant was not able to the nature of such transactions. AO found it reasonable to estimate commission income @1% of transactions mentioned in such chats. The appellant has contended that AO has not proved how he has arrived at commission rate but commission rate estimated by AO is most reasonable looking to the nature of transactions and there is no reasons to deviate from finding of assessment order. Considering these facts, addition made by AO for Rs.36,600/- is confirmed. Thus, the ground of appeal no.7 is dismissed.” 14.4 On considering the findings of the ld.CIT(A), we have noted that the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made of commission earned by the assessee based on evidences found during the search by way of messages which clearly reflected the assessee to be involved in transaction of providing entries. The ld.CIT(A) has noted that messages substantiate the involvement of the assessee in such transactions. These finding of the ld.CIT(A) have remained uncontroverted before us. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 54 14.5 We see no reason therefore to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition made on account of commission earned by the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee in this regard is, therefore, dismissed. 15. Based on the above issue wise discussion and adjudication, we shall now dispose of each ground raised in the respective appeals of the assessee hereunder: 15.1 Before dealing with each appeal, we may mention that the assessee has raised additional ground in all the assessment years before us i.e. Asst.Year 2011-12 to 2017-18 challenging the validity of the assessment framed on the ground that the mandatory approval under section 153Dof the Act by the JCIT for framing assessment was granted mechanically. This being a legal ground admitted for adjudication and dealt with by us in ISSUE NO.2 at para 7.0 to 7.26 partly allowing the ground for statistical purpose. We shall now proceed to deal with regular grounds in each appeal. 16. IT(SS)A No. 3/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Sl. No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding validity of assessment order though same being time barred. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. without incrementing materials for unabated assessment. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs.12,25,000/- of alleged Investment in Joint Venture with Mr. Neil Master. Rs. 3,67,500/- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 55 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs.5,87,475/- Rs. 1,76,243/- 6 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 49,54, 158/- of Cash withdrawn from Bank account of Trust. Rs. 14,86,247/- 7 The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice 8 The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. Total tax effect Rs. 20,29,990/- 16.1 Grounds No. 1, challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that it was passed beyond the time limit prescribed by law and is therefore barred by limitation. This issue has been dealt with by us under ISSUE no.1 paragraphs 6.0 to 6.9 of our order above and dismissed. The ground no.1, is therefore, dismissed. 16.2 Ground No.2 challenges the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material. This contention has been dealt with by us in ISSUE NO.2 and rejected, at para 7.00 to 7.26 of our order above. The Ground No.2 is accordingly dismissed. 16.3 Ground No.3 relates to addition made of cash deposits in the bank account of one Neil Master. This issue has been dealt with by us under ISSUE no.3 (para 8.0 to 8.33 above), and dismissed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 16.4 Ground No.5 is not pressed before us, and is therefore dismissed. 16.5 Ground No.6 challenges the upholding of addition under section 69A of Rs.49,54,158/- being cash withdrawn from bank account of Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 56 the Trust ERDC Trust. This issue has been dealt with by under ISSUE no.7 under para-12.0 to 12.14 of our order above, and dismissed. The ground no.6 is dismissed. 17. IT(SS)A No. 4/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Sl. No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding validity of assessment order though same being time barred. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. without incrementing materials for unabated assessment. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 15,94,000/- of alleged Investment in Joint Venture with Mr. Neil Master. Rs. 4,78,200/- 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 4,68,000/- for cash deposit in Bank account Rs. 1,48,400/- 6 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 5,45,000/- of Cash withdrawn from Bank account of Trust. Rs. 1,63,500/- The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- for deduction claimed U/S 80G of the Act. Rs. 15,000/- 7. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. 8. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. Total tax effect Rs. 8,05,100/- 17.1 Grounds No. 1, challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that it was passed beyond the time limit prescribed by law and is therefore barred by limitation. This issue has been dealt Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 57 with by us under ISSUE no.1 paragraphs 6.0 to 6.9 of our order above and dismissed. The ground no.1, is therefore, dismissed. 17.2 Ground No.2 challenges the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material. This contention has been dealt with by us in ISSUE NO.2 and rejected, at para 7.00 to 7.26 of our order above. The Ground No.2 is accordingly dismissed. 17.3 Ground No.3 relates to addition made of cash deposits in the bank account of one Neil Master. This issue has been dealt with by us under ISSUE no.3 (para 8.0 to 8.33 above), and dismissed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 17.4 Ground No.5 is not pressed before us, and is therefore dismissed. 17.5 Ground No.6 challenges the upholding of addition under section 69A of Rs.5,45,000/- being cash withdrawn from bank account of the Trust ERDC Trust. This issue has been dealt with by under ISSUE no.7 under para-12.0 to 12.14 of our order above, and dismissed. The ground no.6 is dismissed. 17.4 Ground regarding disallowance of Rs.50,000/- for deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act has been dismissed for the reasons discussed in ISSUE NO.8 Paragraph 13.0 & 13.1. This ground is dismissed. 18. IT(SS)A No. 5/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Sl. No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding validity of assessment order though same being time barred. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 58 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. without incrementing materials for unabated assessment. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 18,87,900/- on Investment in Joint Venture with Mr. Neil Master. Rs. 5,66,370/- 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 10,371/- as Unexplained Money. Rs 3,111/- 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not allowing the addition U/S 69C of the Act of Rs. 23,82,000/- as unaccounted Expenditure. Rs. 7,14,600/- 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 42,50,022/- of Cash withdrawn by Trust. Rs. 12,75,006/- 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- , for deduction claimed U/S 80G of the Act. Rs. 15,000/- 8. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. 9. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. Total tax effect Rs. 25,74,087/- 18.1 Grounds No. 1, challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that it was passed beyond the time limit prescribed by law and is therefore barred by limitation. This issue has been dealt with by us under ISSUE no.1 paragraphs 6.0 to 6.9 of our order above and dismissed. The ground no.1, is therefore, dismissed. 18.2 Ground No.2 challenges the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material. This contention has been dealt with by us in ISSUE NO.2 and rejected, at para 7.00 to 7.26 of our order above. The Ground No.2 is accordingly dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 59 18.3 Ground No.3 relates to addition made of cash deposits in the bank account of one Neil Master. This issue has been dealt with by us under ISSUE no.3 (para 8.0 to 8.33 above), and dismissed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 18.4 Ground No.4 is not pressed before us, and is therefore dismissed. 18.3 Ground No.5 challenging validity of addition u/s.69C of the Act of Rs.23,82,000/- as unaccounted expenditure stands dismissed in view of our discussion in ISSUE NO.5 (Paragraph 10.0 to 10.5 above). 18.5 Ground No.6 challenges the upholding of addition under section 69A of Rs.42,50,022/- being cash withdrawn from bank account of the Trust ERDC Trust. This issue has been dealt with by under ISSUE no.7 under para-12.0 to 12.14 of our order above, and dismissed. The ground no.6 is dismissed. 18.5 Ground No.7 against disallowance of Rs.50,000/- for deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act is dismissed for the reasons discussed in ISSUE NO.8 (Paragraph 13.0 & 13.1) 19. IT(SS)A No. 6/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Sl. No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding validity of assessment order though same being time barred. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. without incrementing materials for unabated assessment. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 28,63,000/- of alleged Investment in Joint Venture with Mr. Neil Master. Rs.8,58,900/- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 60 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 17,00,000/- as Unexplained Money. Rs. 5,10,000/- 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the addition U/S 69C of the Act of Rs. 1,60,000/- as Unaccounted Expenditure. Rs. 48,000/- 6 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 1,05,05,355/- of Cash withdrawn from the bank account of Trust. Rs. 31,51,606/- 7 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not allowing the deduction U/S 80G of the Act of Rs. 92,734/-. Rs. 27,820/- 8 The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. 9 The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. Total tax effect Rs. 45,96,326/- 19.1 Grounds No. 1, challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that it was passed beyond the time limit prescribed by law and is therefore barred by limitation. This issue has been dealt with by us under ISSUE no.1 paragraphs 6.0 to 6.9 of our order above and dismissed. The ground no.1, is therefore, dismissed. 19.2 Ground No.2 challenges the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material. This contention has been dealt with by us in ISSUE NO.2 and rejected, at para 7.00 to 7.26 of our order above. The Ground No.2 is accordingly dismissed. 19.3 Ground No.3 relates to addition made of cash deposits in the bank account of one Neil Master. This issue has been dealt with by us under ISSUE no.3 (para 8.0 to 8.33 above), and dismissed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 61 19.4 Ground no.4 challenging upholding the addition u/s.69A of the Act of Rs.17,00,000/- as unexplained money dealt by us in ISSUE NO.4 (paragraph-9.00 to 9.6 above) is allowed. This ground is allowed. 19.5 Ground No.5 challenging validity of addition u/s.69C of the Act of Rs.1,60,000/- as unaccounted expenditure stands dismissed in view of our discussion in ISSUE NO.5 (Paragraph 10.0 to 10.5 above). 19.6 Ground No.6 challenges the upholding of addition under section 69A of Rs.1,05,05,355/- being cash withdrawn from bank account of the ERDC Trust stands dismissed for the reasons discussed in ISSUE NO.7 (Paragraph 12.0 to 12.14) 19.7 Ground No.7 against disallowance of Rs.27,820/- of deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act is dismissed for the reasons discussed in ISSUE NO.8 (Paragraph 13.0 & 13.1) 20. IT(SS)A No. 7/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Sl. No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding validity of assessment order though same time barred and no specific show cause notice has been issued. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. without incrementing materials for unabated assessment. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 9,88,500/- of alleged Investment in Joint Venture with Mr. Neil Master. Rs. 2,96,550/- 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 52,55,140/- of Cash withdrawn from bank account of Trust. Rs. 15,76,542/- 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- Rs. 15,00,000/- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 62 on unaccounted sale proceeds of Immovable properties. 6 The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. 7 The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. Total tax effect Rs. 33,73,092/- 20.1 Grounds No. 1, challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that it was passed beyond the time limit prescribed by law and is therefore barred by limitation. This issue has been dealt with by us under ISSUE no.1 paragraphs 6.0 to 6.9 of our order above and dismissed. The ground no.1, is therefore, dismissed. 20.2 Ground No.2 challenges the validity of the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material. This contention has been dealt with by us in ISSUE NO.2 and rejected, at para 7.00 to 7.26 of our order above. The Ground No.2 is accordingly dismissed. 20.3 Ground No.3 relates to addition made of cash deposits in the bank account of one Neil Master. This issue has been dealt with by us under ISSUE no.3 (para 8.0 to 8.33 above), and dismissed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 20.4 Ground No.4 challenges the upholding of addition under section 69A of Rs.52,55,140/- being cash withdrawn from bank account of the ERDC Trust stands dismissed for the reasons discussed in ISSUE NO.7 (Paragraph 12.0 to 12.14) 20.5 Ground No.5 challenging upholding of the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- on unaccounted sale proceeds of immovable properties is dismissed as per our decision in ISSUE NO.6 (Paragraph 11.0 to 11.5 above). Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 63 21. IT(SS)A No. 8/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Sl. No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding validity of assessment order though same being time barred. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 8,16,500/- of alleged Investment in Joint Venture with Mr. Neil Master. Rs. 2,44,950/- 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 6,31,000/- of Cash withdrawn from the bank account of Trust. Rs. 1,89,300/- 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 36,000/- on commission income. Rs. 10,800/- 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 73,345/- . for deduction claimed U/S 80G of the Act. Rs. 22,004/- 6 The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. 7 The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. Total tax effect Rs. 4,67,054/- 21.1 Grounds No. 1 which challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that it was passed beyond the time limit prescribed by law and is therefore barred by limitation, is dismissed for the reasons discussed under ISSUE No. 1 (paragraphs 6.0 to 6.9 above). 21.2 Ground No.2 relating to addition made of cash deposits in the bank account of one Mr.Neil Master is dismissed for the reasons stated in ISSUE No.3 (paragraph no.8 to 8.33 above). 21.3 Ground No.3 challenges the upholding of addition under section 69A of the Act of Rs.6,31,000/- being cash withdrawn from bank Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 64 account of the ERDC Trust stands dismissed for the reasons discussed in ISSUE NO.7 (Paragraph 12.0 to 12.14) 21.4 The ground no.4, challenges the upholding the addition of Rs.36,000/- on account of commission income stands dismissed for the reasons discussed in ISSUE no.9 (para-14.0 to 14.5 of our above order). This ground is dismissed. 21.5 Ground No.5 against disallowance of Rs.73,345/-for deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act stands dismissed for the reasons discussed in ISSUE NO.8 (Paragraph 13.0 & 13.1) 22. IT(SS)A No. 9/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Sl. No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1 The Assessment order passed is void and illegal because it is time barred and no specific show cause notice has been issued. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the Act of Rs. 24,46,500/- of alleged Investment in Joint Venture with Mr. Neil Master. Rs. 7,33,950/- 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition U/S 69A of the act of Rs. 36,50,000/- of Cash withdrawn from the bank account of the Trust. Rs. 10,95,000/- 4 The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. 5 The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. Total tax effect Rs. 18,28,950/- 22.1 Grounds No. 1 which challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that it was passed beyond the time limit prescribed by law and is therefore barred by limitation, is dismissed for the reasons discussed under ISSUE No. 1 (paragraphs 6.0 to 6.9 above). Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A.No.3/Ahd/2024 and others Tehmul Burjor Sethna Vs. DCIT 65 22.2 Ground No.2 relating to addition made of cash deposits in the bank account of one Mr.Neil Master is dismissed for the reasons stated in ISSUE No.3 (paragraph no.8 to 8.33 above). 22.3 Ground No.3 challenges the upholding of addition under section 69A of Rs.36,50,000/- being cash withdrawn from bank account of the ERDC Trust stands dismissed for the reasons discussed in ISSUE NO.7 (Paragraph 12.0 to 12.14) 23. In the result, all the seven appeals, having been heard together on common issues, are partly allowed for statistical purposes in accordance with the discussion and findings recorded ISSUE WISE hereinabove. Order pronounced in the Court on 31st October, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDARTHA NAUTIYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 31/10/2025 vk* Printed from counselvise.com "