D, DECOR EXPORTER ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-6(4), MUMBAI

5. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had claimed labour contractor charges and based on the investigation made by the Investigation Wing relating to this issues. They made certain enquiries regarding Labour Contract expenses and found the following parties as suspicious: - Sr. Name of the Name of the person amount(Rs No Proprietary concern 1. Sheela Singh Shiv Shakti Enterprises 2,99,79,939/- 2. SampaBalaram Das Tanushree Arts 87,52,116/- 3. Anita Durgesh Agarwal Shreeji Enterprises 99,26,354/- 4. Manjuladevi Jha Jay Ambe Enterprises 72,85,263/- TOTAL 5,58,94,101/-

6 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., that the assessee was making bogus contract payments. Accordingly, Assessing Officer made disallowance of ₹.5,58,94,901/-.

7 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., 9. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A)–54, Mumbai and raised a legal issue that the disallowance was made without any incriminating material found during the search proceedings also filed the detailed submissions relating to the disallowances and additions made by the Assessing Officer. After considering the submissions of the assessee, he rejected the legal issue raised by the assessee with the observation that prima facie, there existed incriminating documents in the form of statements of the above mentioned 5 persons. With regard to issues on the additions made by the AO, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made in the labour contract expenses with the following observations: - “6.3. The submissions of the Learned Counsel have been carefully considered. A perusal of the statements recorded form the four parties show that all of them have admitted to doing labour contract work for the assessee. However, in the subsequent part of the statements they have displayed ignorance of how the activities are undertaken. In the case of Mrs. Anita D. Agarwal, she had stated that her husband Shri Durgesh Harswaroop Agarwal looks after the business and he would be in a position to explain the entire activity. Similarly, Smt. Sampa Balram Das stated that all the business activities are managed by her husband Shri Balram Das and that she does not know details. Smt. Sheela Singh also admitted to providing labour contract work to Ms. D Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd, and M/s. D Decor home fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and has also given the details of the business carried out by her and her husband Shri Adya Prasad Singh. With regard to Smt. Manjula D Jha, it is seen that she had stated that the business of Jai Ambe Enterprises is run by her son Mr. SachinJha and that she is not involved in running the business. Nowhere, has anybody admitted that there is no business or they have received/provided accommodation entries. The AO has stopped his investigation with the statements and has not made any further enquiry. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated that the transactions are genuine and all the four parties are providing labour to the assessee even today. A perusal of the 8 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., statements shows that nowhere have they admitted that they are not aware of the business. They have admitted that they provide labour and also filed returns of income but further details of the business were stated to be in the knowledge of their spouse/son who run the business. The assessee has furnished the details of payments made, the ledger accounts of the parties, TDS certificates issued to the parties, copies of the returns of income, balance sheet and computation of income of the respected parties to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The undisputed facts are that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and processing of fabrics and dealing in all kinds of furbishing and related items. Maintaining the garden at the factory site and engaging labour to do the mending work in embroidery are a part of the business activity of the assessee for which the assessee had taken the services of the aforementioned four parties. All the four parties have confirmed receiving payments from the assessee and have filed their returns of income. As alleged by the AO, there are certain cash withdrawals from the bank accounts of these parties but there is nothing suspicious about this as the assessee had to make payments to the labour by cash. The AO appears to have made the addition merely on the basis of presumptions and surmises without any concrete evidence against the assessee. The objections of the AO are that there is no written contract agreement between the assessee and these parties but that itself will not convert the contract into a bogus one. Similarly, the fact that these ladies has not visited the factory premises of the assessee should not be taken against the assessee as the business has been looked after by other members of the families of these ladies who have already given affidavits confirming the activity. In the light of the facts discussed above, the transactions of the assessee with these parties cannot be termed as accommodation entries. The AO is directed to delete the addition made. This ground of appeal is ALLOWED.”

10. Ld CIT(A) sustained 5% of the credit card expenses by following the decision of the ITAT Kolkata in the case of ACIT vs Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala case. Similarly, he deleted the undisclosed income relating to sale of machinery/Loom and related expenses with the following observations: -

9 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., “9.3. The findings of AO in the Assessment Order and the submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. During the assessment proceedings the AO observed during the search u/s 132 of the Act in the case of M/s. D'décor group, evidences of receipt of 28% cash on sale of old loom machinery was found and seize. The appellant sold old machinery for sale consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-. Therefore, the AO calculated 28% of sale proceeds as cash receipt which was not recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, the AO has made addition of Rs.17,50,000/u/s 69A of the Act. The appellant has submitted that no documents pertaining to receipt of cash were found in the case of the appellant group. The AO has relied upon the statement of Shri Sandeep Galagali for making the addition in respect of cash received on sale of the machinery. However, Shri Sandeep Galagali is the employee of D’décor Home Fabrics Private Limited and he is not the employee of the appellant. Statements of none of the directors or employees of D’décor Home Export were recorded on the issue of receiving cash on sale of machinery. The appellant has relied upon the decisions in the case of CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corporation [374 1TR 645 Bom], Manjula Mangalpabhat Lodha vs DCIT [ITA 3465/Mum/2015], CIT v. Kabul Chawla [380 ITR 573 (Del)], Suncity Alloys (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [124 TTJ 674 (Jod)], Atithi N. Patel [ITA NO: 43/Mum/2010], Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT {ITA 1074/PN/2007], B.R. Machine Tools P. Ltd. v ACIT {ITA 4174 to 4177/Mum/2013], Gurinder Singh Bawa [ITA No. 2075/Mum/2010], Raksha Chhadwa v ACIT {ITA no. 8576 & 8577/Mum/2010] ands Monoplan Securities Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT (ITA No: 5174/Mum/2007). The facts of the case are that a search action was carried out on 06.03.2018 u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of M/s D’décor Export group and M/s. D’decor Home Fabrics group. The appellant belongs to D’décor Export group. The D’eccor Export group is managed and operated by Shri Sanjay Arora whereas M/s. D'decor Home Fabrics group is managed and operated by Shri Ajay Arora, Both these groups are managed and operated by two different individual. The offices of these two groups are located at different floors of same building. Employees of these two groups are different and there is no common employee working for both group. The nature of products manufactured by both the group are different in their quality, style and design. In the case of M/s. D'décor Home Fabrics group, a document containing receipt of cash on sale of old loom machinery was found and seized from premises of M/s. D'décor Home Fabrics group. The statement of Shri Sandeep Galagali, an employee of D'décor Home Fabrics group was recorded during the 10 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., search, in which he admitted having received cash over and above the cheque receipts on sale of the old machinery by D'’décor Home Fabrics group. In the case of the appellant, no documents pertaining to receipt of cash has been found. The statement of none of the directors or employees of D'’décor Home Export were recorded on the issue of receiving cash on sale of machinery. The entire facts and circumstances indicate that during the course of search no incriminating documents/material related to cash received on the sale of loom machinery have been found in case of the appellant. Further, the contention of the appellant is that in order to invoke section 69A of the Act, the appellant must be found to be owner of the money, such money owned has not been recorded in the books and no explanation has been offered for nature and source of money or explanation offered is not recorded in the books of accounts. In the present case, there is no documentary evidences regarding receipt on sale of loom. Also there is no evidence that the assessee was owner of cash so received on sale of looms. The AO has relied upon the statement recorded of some third party in the case of other group. In the present case, the statement recorded is of third party who gave statement in context of other group i.e. D'décor Home Fabrics Private Limited and not the appellant. Therefore, the addition on the basis of statement recorded of third party is not sustainable. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements:

1.

1. PCIT vs Manoj Hora [402 ITR 175 Del] “4. The CIT(A) view that the statement under s. 132(4) could not bind the assessee is, in the opinion of this Court, correct. The textofs. 132(4), clarifies that the presumption arises in the case of the searched party. In case the statements by the party whose premises are searched, or to be attributed to a third party—as in the case of the assessee, there has to be a connect or corroboration. Clearly, there was none in the present case. On this score, the addition made by the AO was Unsustainable; the CIT(A) correctly directed the cancellation.

5. The other factual detail is that no incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises. In the circumstances, the ruling in Kabul Chawla (supra) squarely applies.

11 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., 6. For the above reasons, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals; they are dismissed.” (ii) CIT vs Cordial Company [308 CTR 159 Ker] “Search and seizure—Assessment under s.153C— Computation of undisclosed income—Addition made under s. 69 in the names of assessee-firms on the basis of document seized in search of third party was invalid in the absence of any corroborative evidence— Presumption under s. 292C is applicable only against the person searched—Reliance by AO on the handwritten notes of one of the partners of assessee-firms was invalid in the absence of admitted handwriting—AO did not brother to verify fair price of the property while submitting remand report called for the CIT(A)}— Specific bank transactions referred to by the AO have not been cross verified with the exact amounts shown as investments in the documents seized from A Group— Addition rightly deleted by Tribunal” (iii) CIT vs Concorde Capital Management Co Ltd [334 ITR 346] “Search and Seizure—Block assessment in search cases—No incriminating material found during search— Addition towards undisclosed income on the basis of statement of a third party not sustainable” (iv) DCIT vs Mahendra Ambalal Patel [40 DTR 243 Guj] “Income from undisclosed sources—Addition—Validity— Addition made towards sale of land based on the statement of third party—No opportunity of cross- examination of said third party afforded to assessee despite request—Tribunal rightly deleted addition made by AO on the basis of bald statement of said party, there being no supporting evidence found in the course of search—Nothing on record to establish that land on sale of which payment was made to assessee, belonged to assessee—Tribunal rightly deleted addition made by AO” In view of the facts of the case and the legal position, addition of Rs.17,50,000/- being cash received on sale of machinery is deleted.”

12 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., 11. Aggrieved with the above order, the revenue and assessee are in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: - Assessee’s grounds of appeal: - “1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 54, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as CIT(A) erred in holding that statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) during the course of search action constitute prima-facie incriminating material for making addition in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The Appellant submits that statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of search does not constitute incriminating material in order to make the addition/disallowance in order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. In any view of the matter, the Appellant submits that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act without any corroborative evidence does not constitute incriminating material to make the addition/disallowance in order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act.

2. The CIT(A) ought to have allowed the deduction of Rs.50,67,130/- under section 28/37 , of the Act being education cess paid by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify to the above grounds of appeal.” Revenue’s grounds of appeal

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,58,.94,901/- being payment to 4 labour contractors in respect of which the Assessing Officer had held that the payment was made without rendering any services and they were in the nature of accommodation entries on the basis of detailed analysis of evidences, facts & circumstances without appreciating that: a. The transactions of the assessee with the four labour contractors are accommodation entries since the labour contractors in their Statements recorded on oath had admitted that they had no knowledge for which payments were made to them, and that they only had 13 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., superticial knowledge of the business run in their names and that they failed to substantiate services rendered by such labour contractures. b. The deposit of cheques in the names followed by immediate withdrawal of cash. c. The onus lies on the assessee to prove the expenses incurred by it on labour contract payments were genuine and the services were genuinely used but the assessee had failed in proving its genuineness. d. There existed no contractual agreement between the assessee and the labour contractor parties, in absence of which huge expenses incurred which is also against the normal commercial practices.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in reducing the additions made on account of credit card expenses being personal in nature from 10% to 5% hence, given relief of Rs.23,75,585/-, even though the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the use of credit card for various personal expenses and the assessee during the appellate proceedings failed to substantiate that the expenses made through credit card were for the purpose of business.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of undisclosed income of Rs. 17,50,000/on account of sale of old machinery / looms which in the search action revealed to be received partly in cash. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the modus operandi as disclosed by Shri Sandeep Galagali in his Statement on oath recorded during the search action is adopted by all the entities of both the Groups, viz. M/s.D’décor Exports / D’ décor Exports Private Limited (the assessee) controlled by Shri Sanjay Arora and D’Décor Home Fabrics Private Limited controlled by Shri Ajay Arora.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs.1,25,000/- in the form of brokerage / commission on sale of old machinery / looms as the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the modus operandi as disclosed by Shri Sandeep Galagali in his Statement on oath recorded during the search action is adopted by all the entities of both the Groups, viz. M/s.D’décor Exports / D’décor Exports Private Limited (the assessee) controlled by Shri Sanjay Arora and D’Décor Home Fabrics Private Limited controlled by Shri Ajay Arora.

14 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., The appellant prays that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the above ground be set aside and the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground, which may be necessary. Last date for filing second appeal is extended until further orders, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 08.03.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 to Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020.”

13. At the time of hearing, Ld AR made the submissions as under: - “Additional Ground 1. The assessee filed return on 29/11/2016. Time limit of issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was till 30/09/2017; however, no notice has been issued. Search u/s 132 of the Act took place at the premises of the assessee on 06/03/2018. Thus, on the date of search no assessment proceeding was pending in the case of the assessee; hence, this was an unabated year. In our respectful submission considering the fact that subjected year is an unabated year, the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act must state as to what is the incriminating material found during the course of search action which justifies the additions/disallowances in a completed assessment year. In absence of such jurisdictional requirement, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act does not sustain; hence, the assessment order passed by the AO shall be quashed. In support of this proposition, Your Honours attention is drawn to recent judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Underwater Services Company Limited vs ACIT 1(2021) 5 NYPCTR 898 (Bom) - Bombavl wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that "2. We have considered the notice dt. 29th Nov., 2018 which is impugned in this petition. The notice is very brief and is bereft of any particulars. The same reads as under: PAN AY Dated Notice No. AAACS9177M 29.11.2018 ITBA/AST/S/153 A/2018-2019/10 13898034(1)

15 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., Sir/Madam/M/s, In pursuance of provisions of s. 153A of the IT Act, 1961, you are hereby required to prepare true and correct return of your total income for the asst. yr. 2012-13 in the prescribed form and manner as per r, 12 of IT Rules, 1962 setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed by the IT Act, 1961. The return for the said assessment year verified in accordance with the provisions of s. 140 of the IT Act, 1961 should be furnished within 30 days from the service of this notice. "

3. According to Mr. Chhotaray, s. J53A is couched in mandatory language which implies that once there is a search, the AO has no option but to call upon the assessee to file the returns of the income for the earlier six assessment years. According to Mr. Chhotaray, it is not merely the undisclosed income that will be brought to tax in such assessments, but the total income of the assessee, including both the income earlier disclosed and income found consequent to the search, would be brought to tax. Mr. Chhotaray in support of this submission relied upon Madugula Venu vs. Director oj IT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 200 (Del), CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (2015) 279 CTR (Bom) 389: (2015) 120 DTK (Bom) 89: (2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom), CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) 281 CTR (Del) 45: (2015) 126 DTR (Del) 130: (2015) 61 taxmann.com 412 (Del) and CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2012) 80 DTR (Del) 169: (2012) 24 taxmann.com 98 (Del).

16 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., 6. Because s. 153A provides that an assessment has to be made under the said section only on the basis of seized material, the notice dt. 29th Nov., 2018, which is impugned in this petition should have mentioned whether the seized material was under s. 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under s. 132A. The notice is absolutely silent as could be seen from above. The notice says "you are required to prepare true and correct return of income" and "setting forth such other particulars". Petitioner had filed their returns for the assessment year in question, which they thought was the true and correct return of income and that it contained ail other particulars prescribed. If respondent felt that was not enough and petitioner should file a fresh true and correct return of income because of the search, then respondent should certainly indicate in its notice what were the seized material under s. 132 or books of accounts or other documents or any assets requisitioned under s. 132A. Otherwise an assessee would file a copy of what it had filed earlier, which respondent anyways had in its file. Petitioner has also been seeking from respondent to make available copy of the alleged incriminating material found/seized during the search based on which the notice has been issued. Mr. Chhotaray states that such material has been given later. We are not going into that aspect at this stage because what we find is that the notice issued under s. 153A is bereft of any material. Nothing prevented respondent from mentioning in the notice the basis for issuing the notice under s. I53A so that petitioner could comply with the same as prescribed." [emphasis supplied] Ground 1: 1.1 No incriminating documents have been found during the course of search action at the premises of the assessee. Disallowance of expenses have been made on the basis of statement recorded of labour contractors. CIT(A) in his order at paragraph 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 on page 27 has held that statement recorded are primafacie incriminating materials. In our respectful submission statement recorded does not constitute incriminating material. In support of the above contention, reliance is placed on following judgments: > Rajpal Bhatia [333 ITR 315 Del HC] > Moon Beverages Ltd [195 TTJ 76 Del] > Kuber Khadayan Pvt Ltd [ITA 4223/Del/2018] > Man Global Ltd [ITA 7440/Mum/2019],

17 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., In all above judgments, it has been held that the statement recorded does not constitute incriminating material to justify the disallowance / additions during the proceeding u/s 153A of the Act pursuant to search. 1.2 Having explained that statement recorded does not constitute incriminating material. We respectfully submits that in an unabated year, no disallowance or addition can be made in absence of any incriminating material. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed on following judgments: > Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [374 ITR 645 Bom] > Deepak Kumar Agarwal [398 ITR 586 Bom] > SKS Ispat & Power Ltd [398 ITR 584 Bom] > Gurinder Singh Bawa [386 ITR 483 Bom] 1.3 The learned CIT(DR) referred page 123 of the paper book and stated that some blank bills were found during the course of search action which constitute incriminating material to justify the additions/disallowance. Copies of these bills have been produced before Your Honour during the course of hearing and the said bills have been shown to learned CIT(DR) also. In our respectful submission, bills found during the course of search action was of Shri Krishna Enterprises; however, no disallowance / addition has been made of any transaction with Shree Krishna Enterprises. It is submitted that reliance of CIT(DR) on these bills does not have any impact on the above jurisdictional ground of the assessee. In view of the above facts and principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court, we prays that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. I53A of the Act making disallowance / addition therein shall be quashed. Departments appeal [ITA 1697/Mum/2021] Ground 1: Disallowance of Rs. 5.58 Crores being payments made to four contractors namely Anita Agarwal (Prop of Shreeji Enterprises), Sampa Balaram Das (Prop of Tanushree Arts), Sheela Singh (Prop Shiv Shakti Enterprises) and Manjuladevi Jha (Prop of Jay Ambe enterprises). The order of CIT(A) is challenged by the department on following grounds: (i) Payment to labour contractors are accommodation entry as they have admitted on oath the 18 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., they had no knowledge for which payments were made to them (ii) Deposits of cheques in the name is followed by withdrawal of cash (iii) There is no contractual agreement between assessee and labor. We submit that disallowance has been made on the basis of statement recorded of wives of the contractors. The proprietary concerns of the contractors are in the name of their wives; however, the business of labour contractors have been managed and operated by their husbands. In the statements recorded, wives have acknowledged that they provide labourers to the assessee; however, when asked about business details, they said their husband will be able to explain as the business is operated by the husbands. Copies of statements recorded are at pages 173-188 of paper book wherein they have admitted that they provide labourers to the assessee; however, they are not able to provide more details as business is looked after by husband. Party wise explanations are as under: (i) Smt. Anita Agarwal She provides labours towards gardening, housekeeping and loading - unloading at the factory premises of the assessee. Statement of Anita Agarwal is at page 173 to 175 of paper book. In response to question number 5 on page 174 of paper book, she has specifically stated that "Ans. My source of income is from labour supply to M/s. D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd, through my proprietorship - M/s. Shreejee Enterprises and I file income tax return regularly, latest upto A.Y. 2017-18" In addition to this Shri Durgesh Agarwal (i.e. husband of Ms. Anita Agarwal, proprietor of Shreeji Enterprises) appeared before the AC on 21/11/2019 and in response to question number 13 has specifically stated that he supplies labour to the Appellant Company. Operative part of statement recorded reads as under [paragraph 3.10 of assessment order]: "Q.

13. Please state the name of all the companies to which you have supplied labour during last 6 years. Ans: I have supplied labour to M/s. D' Decor Export, D'decor Home fabrics Private Limited and D 'decor Export Private Limited. All these entities of D 'décor Group situated at Boisar MIDC "

19 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., Moreover, in response to question number 22, Shri Durgesh Agarwal said that he is rendering services since 1985. The affidavit of husband of Shri Durgesh Harswaroop Agarwal is filed at page 539- 542 of paper book wherein he has confirmed that the business activities are looked after by him and he regularly visits to the factory premises of the assessee. Above facts proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the Appellant has availed the services of Shreejee Enterprises and paid the consideration for the same. (ii) Sampa Balaram Das The services rendered by M/s. Tanushree Arts is of mending on schifli embroidered fabrics. Statement of Smt. Sampa Balaram Das was recorded u/s131 of the Act. Copy is filed at page 176 to 179 of paper book. The operative part of the statement recorded are stated as under: "Q9. Please state the detail of your business activities and the address of your business office " Ans. Sir, I have a proprietary business in the name of M/s. Tanushree Arts. As per my knowledge, M/s. Tanushree Arts is in the business of contract work of embroidery work which is of mending of embroidered fabrics and address of the business office is my residence itself. And Sir, all the business activities is managed by husband Shri Balaram Das and I do not know all the details of the business activities" Q.

20 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., (iii) Sheela Singh The Appellant has availed the services of M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises who provides laborer to the Appellant for dyeing of fabrics. Bills have been raised by M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises on the dyeing work done on the fabrics. Statement of Smt. Sheela Singh was recorded u/s 131 of the Act. Copy of statement is at page 180-185 of paper book. The operative part of the statement recorded are stated as under: "Q.5) Please give details of your source of income and do you file return of income? Ans. Sir. I am labor contractor, I have business income out of supply of labour to companies namely D Decor Home Fabrics Pvt Ltd and D Decor Exports Pvt Ltd and regularly filing my return of income upto of A. Y 2017-18. Q.10) Please state the name of concern working from the premises located at 204 satyam-HJ Apartment, Navapur Road, Saravali, Boisar-4015016. Ans. Sir, from this premises, two concerns are working 1) M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises (proprietor Mrs. Sheela A Singh and 2) M/s. Singh Spoiling Contractor (Proprietor. Shri Adya Prasad Singh, My husband) Further to the above, the statement of Shri Adyaprasad Singh (husband of Smt Sheela Singh) was recorded on 19/11/2019 by the AO. In the statement so recorded, Shri Adyaprasad Singh has categorically stated in reply to question number 10 that he has supplied labour to Appellant. Operative part of question and answers reads as under: Q. 10 Please state the name of all the companies to which you have supplied labour during last 6 years. Ans. I have supplied labour to D'decor HOME Fabrics Private Limited and D'decor Export Private Limited and Agatpal Industries Private limited. All these 3 companies are situated at Boisar, MIDC" (iv) Manjula Devi Jha: The services rendered by M/s Jai Ambe Enterprises is mending of Multi Embroidered fabrics Statement Smt. Manjula Devi has been recorded u/s 131 of the Act is filed at page 186 to 188 of paper book wherein she has admitted that she provides laborers to the assessee. The question and answer reads as under: "Q.5 Please give details of your sources of income.

21 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., Ans. My source of income sis business income from proprietorship business namely M/s. Jay Ambe Enterprises. Q.6 Please state the nature of business being run by you in name of M/s. Jay Ambe Enterprises. Ans. The business in the name of M/s.Jay Ambe Enterprises is being run by my son Sachin Jha. I am not involved in running the business. All answers regarding the business can be given only by Sachin Jha. " An affidavit of Shri Sachin Jha is filed at page 548 to 55 1 of paper book wherein he has confirmed on oath that (i) M/s. Jai Ambe Enterprises provides laborers to the Appellant for mending on multi embroidered fabrics (ii) he regularly visits the factory premises of the Appellant (iii) he provides laborers for mending work on multi embroidery fabrics as on today also. The assessee further submits that since last few years, it started keeping the attendance of the laborers through bio-metric which corroborate that the assessee has availed the services of all the above contractors and they are rendering services as of today also. In addition to the above, in paper book at pages 189 to 538 following documents are filed party wise: statement showing details of payments made to the contracts TDS certificates issued Returns filed by the contractors (iv) Bills raised by the contractors with complete working of dues which shows that the assessee deducts provident fund and profession tax from the payments made to the labourers. The assessee needs to comply with these statutory provisions due to labour contract regulation. The supply of labourers are very unorganised sector where the contractors are mostly very less educated. The assessee facilitated them to file the return and organised them by keeping their complete record. Considering the facts of the case with documentary evidences, we prays that the expenses incurred by the assessee are genuine. Thus, the order of CIT(A) shall be upheld and departments appeal shall be dismissed.

22 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., Moreover, in the following judgments disallowance has been deleted on the similar sets of facts where the proprietary concerns were in the name of wife but the business was operated by the husband: > Dwarkesh Infrastructure P. Ltd [ITA 2813.Ahd/20161 > M/s. J.Kumar [ITA3449/Mum/2019] Moreover, the return filed by the contractors have been accepted; hence, no adverse inferences can be drawn in the case of the assessee. It is also submitted that the cash could have been withdrawn by the contractors as they have to make payments to the labourers. Also, the bills raised by the contractors are itself agreement and there is no legal requirement to have agreement for the such arrangement. Ground 2 refers to adhoc disallowance of expenses @ 5%. In our respectful submission, there was no evidence found that credit card expenses are personal in nature. Assessee being a company, there cannot be personal expenses. Thus, this ground of department shall be dismissed. Ground 3 and 4 pertains to addition of consideration on loom sale received partly in cash and commission paid thereon. This addition has been made on the basis of statement recorded of Shri Sandeep Galagali. In our respectful submission, Shri Sandeep Galagali is not the employees of assessee company. The assessee company is owned and operated by Shri Sanjay Arora whereas Shri Sandeep Galagali is employee of M/s. D'decor Home Fabrics Private Limited which is owned and managed by Shri Ajay Arora (brother of Shri Sanjay Arora). Statement of Shri Sandeep Galagali has been filed during the course of hearing. In his statement, in response to question no 11. he has stated that he only knows D'decor Home Fabrics Pvt Ltd which is not the assessee company but a company owned and managed by Shri Ajay Arora. Therefore, in our respectful submission the statement recorded of Shri Galagali has no link with the case of the assessee: thus, the same cannot be relied upon to make the addition in the case of the assessee. Moreover, no material, whatsoever, have been found during the search at the premises of the assessee which could even remotely suggest that the assessee has received cash on sell of machinery. Besides, there is no statement of any person related to assessee where this issue has been raised. Thus, the assessee plead that the order of C1T(A) shall be upheld and department appeal shall be 23 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., quashed. Addition of commission is consequential. Thus, the ground of department shall be dismissed and CIT(A)'s order shall be upheld.”

24 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., 16. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. First let us deal with the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in their appeal that the Assessing Officer has issued improper notice u/s 153A of the Act to initiate the unabated assessment year under consideration. We noticed from the submissions of the Ld AR that the notice issued u/s 153A by the Assessing Officer does not contain any details of incriminating material found during the search. In absence of such crucial details, whether the assessment made under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A is bad in law. As indicated earlier the notice issued u/s 153A does not contain any details of incriminating material or any reasons for which the assessment is reassessed u/s 153A of the Act, we observe that in the similar situation, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Underwater Services Company Limited (supra) held that issuance of notice is the preliminary step which enables the assessee to effectively deal with the case made out by the revenue. Further, the section 153A provides that an assessment has to be made under the said section only on the basis of seized material u/s 132 or 132A, in the absence of such details in the notice issued under the said section, the assessee is not in a position to appreciate which return of income should be filed in response to the notice issued u/s 153A, whether the original return of income filed or revised

25 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., return of income. As held that the Hon’ble Court held that nothing prevented the revenue from mentioning in the notice the basis for issuing the notice u/s 153A so that the assessee could comply with the same as prescribed.

26 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., “12. In the present case, admittedly, during the search carried out at the premises of Mr. & Mrs. Charla, no books of accounts or other documents or other assets pertaining to the assessees herein was found or seized. The entire foundation of the block assessment under Section 158 BD of the Act, in so far assessees are concerned, was the statement of Smt. Suraksha Charla recorded during the course of search.

28 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., and their family members were involved in the running of the business, they clearly indicated that their family members or husband were in a position to explain the entire activities. Nowhere, they admitted that there is no business or they have received or provided accommodation entries. It was submitted by the assessee that the transactions are genuine and all the four parties are providing labour to the assessee even today. They have admitted that they provide labour and filed their returns of income but further details of the business were stated to be in the knowledge of their spouse/son who run their business, the assessee has provided the documentary evidences like payments, ledger copies financial statements etc. Ld CIT(A) observed that the undisputed facts are that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and processing of fabrics and dealing in all kinds furbishing, maintaining the garden, engaging labour to do the mending works in embroidery are a part of the business activities for which the assessee had taken the services of the above mentioned four parties. The above parties have confirmed to have provided the services. However, AO has alleged that they have withdrawn the cash immediately depositing the cheques but there is no suspicious about this as the above said parties had to make the payments to the labour by cash.

29 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., 24. Therefore, it is clear from the findings of the Ld CIT(A) as well as submissions made by both parties that the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely on the basis of presumptions and surmises without there is any concrete evidence against the assessee. Similarly, the objections raised by the Assessing Officer that there are no written contracts, the proprietors never visited the factory premises, we observe that Ld.CIT(A) has clearly addressed these concerns in his order that the absence of the written contracts will not make the transactions bogus and the ladies did not visit the factories because their spouses/son were carrying out the business and the respective spouse/son have already confirmed the same by filing proper affidavits. By considering the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and facts on record, we have no hesitation to confirm the decision reached by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the above findings and accordingly ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.

30 1051, 1052 & 1053/MUM/2021 & other appeals D'Decor Exports Pvt. Ltd., Officer should have verified the same in detail before making any such disallowances. The courts have held that the adhoc disallowances cannot be made without their being any basis. The credit cards facilities are given to the Directors and other employees only facilitating payments of expenses to be made on behalf of the company. Similar view was also expressed by ITAT Delhi bench in the case of ACIT Central Circle-13 Vs Swastik Pipes Ltd (2018) 98 taxmann.com 420. (refer para 32 of the order). Therefore, we direct AO to allow the total expenses claimed by the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2022.