Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual working for the 'Homeland group' and managing its financial affairs, was subjected to a search and seizure operation. Loose papers and excel sheets were seized, which the AO used to make additions for unsecured loans. The CIT(A) deleted these additions.
Held
The Tribunal held that the seized documents and excel sheets did not conclusively prove that the transactions belonged to the assessee. The assessee, being a salaried employee, had managed the group's finances, but no personal business activity or unexplained assets were found. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO based on seized documents, alleging unsecured loans, are sustainable when the assessee is a salaried employee and no direct link to personal business activity is established.
Sections Cited
68, 115BBE, 147, 148, 69C, 153D, 292C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH
Before: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM
2024) िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2019-20 The DCIT बनाम Kapil Romana CC-2 48, Homeland Enclave, Ludhiana Goniana Road, Bathinda, Punjab-151001 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AGLPR0961J अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent Cross Objection No. 21/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपील सं./ 2024) िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kapil Romana बनाम The DCIT 48, Homeland Enclave, CC-2 Goniana Road, Bathinda, Ludhiana Punjab-151001 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AGLPR0961J अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/05/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 16/06/2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
These appeals have been filed by the Department, and the corresponding cross-objections have been filed by the assessee. Since the facts and issues involved are common across all the appeals, they are being heard and disposed of together for the sake of convenience. Both the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned CIT (DR) have given their consent for the same.
The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual residing in Bathinda and working with ‘Homeland group’; looking after the entire financial affairs of the group as a whole, including reimbursement of loan by 3 different entities of the group arranging of borrowings from different financial Institutions /bankers. He had been filing his return of income regularly year after year disclosing salary income only from the Homeland group as a salaried employee and he has no business income as such. So, he is not maintaining any books of accounts.
There was a search and seizure operations at the residential and business premises of ‘Homeland group’ on 26.02.2020 since, the Assessee was looking after the entire financial affairs of the group as a whole, including borrowings and reimbursement of loans as taken from the various financial Institutions/banks, he was also subjected to search on 26.02.2020.
During the course of search, certain loose papers were seized from the premises of the assessee. Copies of the same have been placed in the Paper Book pages 2 & 3, in which, the ‘cash credit limits’ as sanctioned by the financial institutions to each of the group concerns, management of the of LC Margin/Collateral value of the security, as offered by each entity of the group and other relevant details of the group concerns had been recorded. Besides, certain excel sheets were found, in which, the names of certain parties have been mentioned against whom some amounts have been mentioned as per copy of the excel sheets reproduced by the AO in the assessment order for Asstt. Year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. From the notings on the loose sheets, it is established that the assessee had been managing the financial affairs of the group as a whole. It was stated by the assessee that since the group was facing severe financial crises, the excel sheets depict the projected raising of the further loans, based on the discussion with various parties. Some of them had even materialized and since these were only projections for the employer companies, these documents do not relate to the assessee at all. The summary of the credit limits of the group reproduced at page 53 of the order of CIT(A) for Asstt. Year 2019-20, establishes this fact and itsclear copies have been submitted by the assessee in the paper book in Asstt. Year 2018-19 at page 3&4.
4 5. Similarly for Asstt. Year 2017-18, some excel sheets under the name of ‘BTD 2011’, was found, in which, one copy of the account of ‘Dr. Jagjeet Singh Chawla’ have been drawn, showing the debit and credit entries in cash. In same excel sheets, there are certain entries, depicting certain transactions of cash under the name of ‘BTD-2011’ account of “Rani ji Jagraon’ have been mentioned therein. The same has been reproduced in the assessment order of AO for Asstt. Year 2017-18 & 2018-19.The Assessing Officer on the basis of these two documents under the head of ‘BTD-2011’ of‘Dr. Jagjeet Singh Chawla’ and “Rani Ki Jagraon’ held that the assessee had raised unsecured loan of Rs. 1,93,59,911/- in Asstt. Year 2017-18 and applied the provisions of section 68 r.w.section 115BBE and made the addition of above amount.
The Ld. CIT (A) analyzed these documents under the head BTD-2011 and held that there is no reference of the name of Assessee in the said seized document. A bare look at the document reveals that, such entries are in the books of ‘BTD 2011’ as per seized documents and, thus, there was only assumption on the part of the AO, that such entries belong to the assessee. The CIT(A) also held that on the basis of these loose document, the case of ‘Dr. Jagjeet Chawla’ was subjected to reopening u/s 147, but the proceedings in that case have been filed. Further, it was held that the assessee was not maintaining any personal books of accounts. These loose sheets have nothing to do with the financial affairs of the assessee. Further, it was held that the seized document had to be read as a whole. In Asstt. Year 2018-19, the same observations were made about such document and the Assessing Officer did not accept that figures mentioned therein, trelate to the job profile of assessee of managing the ‘financial affairs’ of the ‘Homeland group’ . Majority of these figures are projected and the rough tabulation, regarding loans to be raised and, accordingly, made an addition of Rs. 46,67,054/- in respect of ‘Rani Ki Jagraon’ and Rs. 24,19,800/- in respect of ‘Dr. Jagjeet Chawla’ u/s 68 and 69C of the Act respectively.
The Ld. CIT (A) analyzed each and every document found during search and the relevant documents have been reproduced at page 20 and 21
5 of the order of CIT (A) for Asstt. Year 2018-19 and also in the order for Asstt. Year 2017-18. He held that the assessee is only deriving salary income from the ‘Homeland group’ and the figures reflected in various documents are, in fact, of bank borrowings and projections. There is no finding of the AO that the assessee is engaged in the business activity in his individual capacity. Further, it was held by the CIT(A) that the document which have been identified, the name written on the top is of ‘BTD 2011’ and it has not been established that the said entity belongs to the assessee concerned. On the basis of these facts and circumstances, the assessment as reopened u/s 147 in the case of ‘Dr.Jagjit Chawla’, the proceedings have been filed with the AOfor Asstt. Years 2017-18 and 2018-19.
In Asstt. Year 2019-20, on the basis of certain excel sheets, where the name of certain parties have been mentioned and against whom certain amount have been mentioned therein, it was stated by the assessee that the group was contemplating to raise certain borrowings from various parties and some of them had materialized, such entries are existing in the regular books of accounts of the group concerns and, thus, no addition could be made in the hands of assessee at all. It was, further held by the CIT(A) that these were only the projected figures and assessee has no link or connection with them at all. The detailed submissions as made before the Ld. CIT(A), have been reproduced in the order of CIT(A). The main contention of the assessee was that in respect of certain parties from whom, the borrowings was sought to be arranged , actual borrowings was materialized from some of the parties and while for some other parties. Certain working of interest burden by the assessee, which the group companies were likely bear. If all such projections, could materialize in order to improve the financial health of the group and such details were submitted before the CIT(A) along with explanation of almost of all the parties. They have been reproduced in the order of CIT(A), from pages 24 to 29. The Ld. CIT(A), has remanded the same to the AO. The AO gave his remand report and confirmed that in respect of some of the parties, actual borrowings have been taken place income group concerns and such entries match with the figures as mentioned in the books
6 of accounts of different group concerns. For some other parties as per the assessee, they were projected figures. But it was not accepted by the AO.
In rejoinder to remand report, it was submitted by the assessee (reproduced in the order of CIT(A) for Asstt. Year 2019-20from pages 37 to page 45). The finding of CIT(A) is from page 48 of the orderand after considering the loose papers and contention of the assessee and Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the remand report, he held that it is an accepted fact that the assessee was handling financial matters of the group, as it was evident from the two seized documents found during the course of search, where certain credit facilities as enjoyed by the group concern have been mentioned and then the particulars of the financial position of each company have been recorded. Copies of such documents have been reproduced at page 53 of the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) on the basis of his finding in Asstt. Year 2017-18 & 2018-19, held that there is no seized material available, which suggested that the appellant was not an employee of the group. In fact, he is a key person of the group in arranging finances. He further, held that the seized papers itself establish that some of the names of the parties, from whom, borrowings have been made and the amount mentioned therein are as per the books of accounts of different group concerns. Such borrowings have been recorded therein. Thus, it is established from the two seized documents that the financial health of the group was not in order and defaults had been there with regard to reimbursement of the loans. The assessee being overall In-charge of arranging the finances for the group was, somehow, or the others seriously involved in improving the financial health of the company. He was by arranging certain borrowings, for which, certain notings were made on the loose sheets and, thus, it was held by the CIT(A) that the appellant has been able to discharge his burden in respect of the documents/loose sheets as found during search and deleted the said addition in all the three years.
Against this finding of the CIT(A) deleting the addition in all the three years, following grounds of appeals have been raised by the Revenue: forAY 2017-2018 “1. Weather and facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) vas justified in ignoring the previous section 292c and holding that no primary or corroborating evidence exit which can prove correlation outside books of accounts being carried out by assessee?
2. Weather on facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the provisions of section 292C and holding that AO filled to prove that the entity named "BTD 2011", whose legers were found during records of search at the premises owned by the SSC and their by contradicting provisions of section 292C?
3. Weather the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,93,59,911/- made on account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
4. Weather the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,87,826/- made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the entry of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla on the said page was cross-referred to another seized page i.e. ledger of account of doctor Jagjeet Chawla for the period 01.04.2016 to 06.02.2019 and it was found that the entry of balance amounting to Rs. 36,18,191/- as stated in the said page exactly matched with the ledger of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla seized during the search.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also ignored the facts that the entry of Rani Ji Jagraon on the said page was cross-referred to another seized page i.e. ledger of account of doctor Rani Ji Jagraon for the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 and it was found that the ledger account Rs. 42,82,411/- as 01.04.2017 which means there was a closing balance of Rs. 42,82,411/- as on 31.03.2017.
7. Weather the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the edition, based on cognizable evidence related to assessee? 8. The appellant craves leave to add. amend modify, very omit or substitute any of the aforesaid ground of appeal
at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” forAY 2018-2019 “1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the provisions of section 292C and holding that no primary or corroborating evidence exist which can correlation of the seized document which any business outside books of account being carried-out by assessee?
2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the provisions of section 292C and holding that AO failed to prove that the entity named “BTD 2011”, Whose ledgers were found during the course of search at the premises owned by the assessee and thereby contradicting provisions of section 292C?
3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs.46,67,054/- made an account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBEof the Income Tax Act, 1961?
4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs.24,19,800/- made on account of unexplained unsecured u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBEof the Income Tax Act, 1961?
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the entry of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla on the said page was cross-referred to another seized page i.e. ledger of account of doctor Jagjeet Chawla for the period 01.04.2016 to 06.02.2019 and it was found that the entry of balance amounting to Rs. 36,18,191/- as stated in the said page exactly matched with the ledger of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla seized during the search.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also ignored the facts that the entry of Rani JiJagraon on the said page was cross-referred to another seized page i.e. ledger of account of doctor Rani JiJagraon for the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 and it was found that the ledger account Rs. 42,82,411/- as 01.04.2017 which means there was a closing balance of Rs. 42,82,411/- as on 31.03.2017.
7. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the edition, based on cognizable evidence related to assessee? 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend modify, very omit or substitute any of the aforesaid ground of appeal
at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” forAY 2019-2020
1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the provisions of section 292C and holding that no primary or corroborating evidence exist which can 9 prove correlation of the seized document which any business outside books of account being carried-out by assessee? 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the provisions of section 292C and holding that AO failed to prove that the entity named “BTD 2011”, Whose ledgers were found during the course of search at the premises owned by the assessee and thereby contradicting provisions of section 292C? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,84,04,290/- made on account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the entry of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla on the said page was cross-referred to another seized page i.e. ledger of account of doctor Jagjeet Chawla for the period 01.04.2016 to 06.02.2019 and it was found that the entry of balance amounting to Rs. 36,18,191/- as stated in the said page exactly matched with the ledger of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla.
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the edition, based on cognizable evidence related to assessee? 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid ground of appeal
at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
11. The assessee has filed cross objections for each of the above said years as under:-
C.O.NO.31/Chd./2024 (A) for Asstt.Year 2017-18 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal with regard to mechanical approval accorded by the Addl. CIT, Ludhiana u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act and the finding of the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the order is contrary to the evidence furnished during the course of hearing before him.
2. That the approval having been accorded by the Ld. Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner and, as such, the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer deserves to be quashed as per the recent judgment of Hon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench Chandigarh in the case of M/s Ganesh Builders & Others in ITA No. 452/Chd/2022.
10 4. That respondent craves leave to add or amend the ground of cross objections before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” C.O. No.32/Chd/2024(A) for Asstt.Year 2018-19 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal with regard to mechanical approval accorded by the Addl. CIT, Ludhiana u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act and the finding of the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the order is contrary to the evidence furnished during the course of hearing before him.
2. That the approval having been accorded by the Ld. Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner and, as such, the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer deserves to be quashed as per the recent judgment of Hon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in the case of M/s Ganesh Builders & Others in ITA No. 452/Chd/2022.
4. That respondent craves leave to add or amend the ground of cross objections before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” C.O. No.21/Chd/2025(A) for Asstt.Year 2019-20 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal with regard to mechanical approval accorded by the Addl. CIT, Ludhiana u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act and is contrary to the evidence furnished during the course of hearing before him.
2. That the approval having been accorded by the Ld. Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner and, as such, the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer deserves to be quashed as per the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, different High Courts and different Benches of the ITAT.
3. That respondent craves leave to add or amend the ground of cross objections before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”
At the very outset, it was pointed out to the Counsel of the assessee that Cross objections filed by the assessee in Asstt. Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 were late as under:- Assessment Year 2017-18 236 days Assessment year 2018-19 236 days
11 13. The assessee in respect of late cross objections having been filed, filed applications for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit of the assessee concerned. He was under the bonafide belief that since the appropriate relief has already been granted to him by the order of CIT(A) so nothing was required to be done by the assessee. It was the counsel advised that the Cross objections need to be filed and, thus, it was argued that delay in filing the cross objections be condoned. The Ld. DR argued that the issue regarding the condonation of delay be decided on merits. After going through the contents of the application filed by the assessee and affidavit, the delay in filing the cross objections for Asstt. Year 2017-17 & 2018-19 by 236 days are condoned.
On the merits of the case, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and contended that the addition has been made on the basis of loose documents recovered from the residence of assessee and, thus, the burden lay upon the assessee to discharge the onus cast upon him which has not been discharged Thus, he justified the addition made by the AO in all these years.
The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued at length that it is an admitted fact that the assessee is a salaried employee of the group and the documents found during the course of search and particularly, two documents, which have been scanned by the CIT(A) at page 53 of the order for Asstt. Year 2019-20 (clear copy has been placed in Paper Book for Asstt. Year 2017-18 at pages 2 to 3) and for the sake of reference, such documents are being reproduced as under:-
A bare look at such seized document clearly demonstrate that in the said two documents, the various CC limits, as enjoyed by different group concerns of ‘Homeland Group’ have been detailed therein. Even majority of the details like FLC limit, DP Allowed, outstanding balances, LC Margin, collateral security in respect of each and every group concern, have been detailed theirin. From above perusal of contents in such excel sheets, it was argued that it proves the contention of the assessee that he was looking after the borrowings made by the group as a whole from Banks and private borrowings. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel that, as regards, excel sheets, where the name of certain parties along with amount has been mentioned (as per copies of seized sheets reproduced in the Assessment orders for Asstt. Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20). The names of certain parties have been mentioned against certain amount has been recorded, it was also contended by Ld. Counsel that since the group was facing financial crises, the assessee was contemplating to raise certain borrowings from different parties. Some of such transactions of borrowings did materialize and such transactions of borrowings have duly been reflected in some of the group concerns as per regular books of accounts. These evidences were forwarded to the AO for verification. During remand proceedings, it has been established that some of the entries as per loose sheets, where the name of the party and amounts mentioned are tallying with the books of accounts of the respective group concerns. The contention of the assessee that he was trying to arrange the finances from some of the other parties, in order to tied over the financial difficulty, faced by the group is plausible and bonafide contention. Further, it is a matter of record that the assessee is not having any business income and he is drawing salary only from the group. He has hot been maintaining any personal books of accounts. Even, during the course of survey, no unexplained assets / unexplained investment / unexplained money / jewellery have been seized from the premises of the assessee. There is no material on record to suggest that the appellant was engaged in some business activity. It is found that the transactions as recorded in the seized excel sheets do not belong to the assessee at all. Even in the remand report nothing adverse was pointed
14 against the assessee, The CIT(A) has threadbare given his finding after considering the remand report by AO from page 52 of the order for Asstt .Year 2019-20 and then from page 60, the following finding has been recorded:-
“(vi) On similar facts, similar addition in the case of Sh Sanjeev Mittal for the AY 2018-19 has been deleted by my predecessor holding that BTD-2011 is not a valid document (vii) In the present case, while determining the sanctity of the seized paper and ascertaining the year of addition, the AO relied upon the transaction of Dr Jagjeet Chawla. As already discussed above as well as in the appellate order in the appellant's own case for the AY 2018-19, the addition made by the AO on the basis of transaction with Dr Jagjeet Chawla was deleted. It is also observed that the case of Dr Jagjeet Chawla was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of this document/ information only and no adverse inference was drawn by the National Faceless Assessment Centre in his case and no addition was made. Therefore, one of the key foundations for interpreting this document and making addition does not survive. (viii) There has been no material on record to suggest that the appellant was engaged In some business activity. At the same time, material available on record and found during search indicate that the appellant is a salaried employee of the GH crop group of companies. The AO has not been able to controvert this submission of the appellant, either during assessment or during remand proceedings. (ix) During search, there is no unexplained asset or unexplained investment, or Unexplained money/jewellery found/seized during the search on his premises. The *returned income for the search year i.e. AY 2020-21 of Rs.3.26.029/- has been filed. As per record there is no adverse assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2020-21. Although exact one-to-one correlation with source of unexplained income and application of unexplained income is not possible, there would be some indications or part evidence in the form of unexplained assets/unexplained expenditure/unexplained money etc, particularly when the alleged unaccounted income is of the order of Rs 40,84,04,290/-. In the present case this is entirely missing i.e. there is no corresponding unexplained assets (even part asset) to suggest application of unexplained money. (x) The figure mentioned in the seized paper containing the table of group companies, is partly tallying with the copy of accounts and confirmation filed by these Companies during remand
15 proceedings before the AD. This substantiates the Son of the spot looking after the financial work of these companies an employee (xi) Also, there is no seized material available, which suggests that the appellant was not an employee but was a key person of this group and was a beneficiary of these transactions. (x). It is settled legal principle that any seized document of evidence has to be read as a whole in its entirety and it cannot be interpreted in bits and pieces so as to give a different meaning to part of the transactions. This principle has been discussed in detail in the following cases: Nevivan Oil Mills v. CIT 124 Taxman 392 (Gujarat) Glass Lines Equipment Co. Ltd. v. CIT 253 ITR 464 (Gujarat) DCIT v. Kanakia Hospitality P. Ltd. 110 Taxmann.com 4 (Mumbai ITAT) Dhanvarsha Builders v. DCIT 102 ITD 3751 (Pune ITAT) In the light of the above findings and stated legal position, it is held that the Assessing Officer has erred in interpreting the seized document and the so-called transactions reflected therein to be belonging to the appellant and holding them as cash unsecured loans received by the assessee. The assessee has been admittedly a salaried person involved in handling the financial matters of his group companies. The assessee has been found to be engaged in any business activity. The said issue has duly explained by the appellant in his response to the SCN filed during the et proceedings. On the other hand, the view taken by of the AO has not been pond in view of the findings in the case of Sh. Sanjeev Mittal, in the case of Dr.Jagjeet Chawla and in the view of above discussion. (xi). In view of the above facts and discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellant has been able to discharge his burden of prove in respect of this document, whereas, there is no other material available on record to suggest otherwise. The appellant is a salaried person of the GH crop of group and the document, on the basis of which, addition of Rs. 40,84,04,230/- has been made, does not contain transaction of unsecured cash loan received by the appellant. I find merit in the arguments put forward by the appellant with supporting documentary evidence in this regard. There is no seized document or result of enquiry which suggest that the appellant is engaged in some of his own business activity. Under these facts and circumstances, it is held that the entries in document forming basis of addition of Rs. 40,84,04,290/-, does not pertain to the appellant. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 40,84,04,290/- made by the AO u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act is deleted.
16 Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are allowed.”
After going through the detailed findings given by the ld. CIT(A) and after taking into consideration all document and entries made therein, we are in agreement with the finding of CIT(A), deleting the addition in Asstt. Year 2019-20.
Similarly for Asstt. Year 2017-18 And 2018-19, it has not been established by the AO that the entity ‘BTD- 2011’ belongs to the assessee and further, the proceedings u/s 147 in the case of ‘Dr. Jagjeet Chawla’ has been dropped, after reopening u/’s 147 on the basis of said seized document. Again, on the basis of some loose document, where the entries are there under the head ‘BTD 2011 of ‘Rani Ki Jagraon’ and these additions have been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) as per finding given in respective years by the CIT(A) at pages 22 to 25 of the order. We find that the findings of the CIT(A) at page 24 is very logical which is reproduced as under in Asstt. Year 2017-18:-
“In the light of the above findings and stated legal position, it is held that the Assessing Officer has erred in interpreting the seized document and the so-called transactions reflected therein to be belonging to the appellant and holding them as cash unsecured loans received by the assessee. The AO has failed to establish the existence of any entity by the name of BTD 2011 and nor the assessee has been found to be engaged in any business activity. The assessee has been admittedly a salaried person involved in handling the financial matters of his group companies. The said issue has been duly explained by the assessee in his response to the SCN filed during the course of assessment proceedings. On the other hand, the view taken by of the AO has not been proved in view of the findings in the case of Sh. Sanjeev Mittal by my predecessor and also the case of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla by the AO National Faceless Assessment Centre.
Same findings have been given by the CIT(A) in the order for Asstt. Year 2018-19 wherein he has deleted the additions made in A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19. We are of this considered view that the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) on merit in appeals for A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20
17 are very sound and logical and needs no interference. Thus, Revenue’s appeal in all the above Assessment Years are dismissed on merit.
In the cross objections, there is a common ground that the approval u/s 153D have been granted by the Addl. CIT (Central) in a mechanical manner. The assessee has placed before us at pages 36 to page 39 of the paper book, for Asstt. Year 2018-19, wherein, the AO forwarded for the approval in the case of assessee, listed at serial No.51, alongwith approval for 105 other cases, from Asstt. Year 2014-15 to 2020-21 was sought and on the same day, the said approval in 105 cases was accorded by the Addl. CIT (Central) as per pages 38 to 39 of the Paper Book.
Further to that, certain more evidences were furnished by the assessee that even on 30th of September 2021 in some other cases, the approval were sent on 30th of September and on the same day, the approval was granted by the Addl.CIT (Central). Thus, under such circumstances, it was argued that there is no judicious application of mind by the Worthy Addl.CIT (Central) Range, and, thus, it was a mechanical in nature and relied upon the following case laws:-
ACIT vs. Serajuddin and Co. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC)[28-11-2023] ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) [15-03-2023] Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar [2024] 163 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi)[15-05-2024] 2025 (3) TMI 994 - ITAT DELHI KEHAR SINGH VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI. 2025 (1) TMI 970 - ITAT DELHI INDER CHAND BAJAJ AE -17 VERSUS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32 DELHI 2025 (4) TMI 1132 - ITAT DELHI APPLE COMMODITIES LIMITED VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, NOIDA 2024 (12) TMI 1107 - ITAT DELHI M/S AIRWILL INFRA LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA.
2025 (1) TMI 175 - ITAT DELHI KAVITA JAIN, BIJENDER KUMAR JAIN,SANDEEP JAIN, SMT. RAKHI JAIN, NARENDER KUMAR JAIN, SURINDERKUMAR JAIN, JAGDISH PRASHAD JAIN VERSUS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLEKARNAL 2025 (2) TMI 915 - ITAT DELHI GULZAR AHMED VERSUS DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN 2024 (12) TMI 1553 - ITAT MUMBAI NILESH SHAMJI BHARANI VERSUS DCIT, CC-4 (1), MUMBAI. SP SINGLA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. CIT, to 145/Chd/2024, AY 2013-14 to 2018-19. Ganesh Builders vs. DCIT, AY 2012-13 &452/CHD/2022 AY 2012-13 (Relevant discussion in this case have been given starting from para 16, page 37 and by relying upon various judgments final finding has been given in para 16.19. page 48 & 49 of the order).
It was further argued that that the judgment of Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Serajuddin & Co. has been sustained by the Hon’ble Apex Court where the SLP of the department has been dismissed as per decisions reported in [2024] 163 taxmann.com 118. Similarly, the reliance was placed on the judgment of Chandigarh Bench in the case of ‘Ganesh Builders and S.P. Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd.’, as cited above.
The Ld. Departmental Representative argued that the approval has been granted in a judicial manner and it is not mechanical in nature since the Ld. Addl. CIT is apprised of the facts from time to time by officers / authorities below. So, signing approval letters of many cases simultaneously does not mean that the Addl. CIT has not applied in mind. The DR further argued extensively on this basis and requested for dismissing the technical ground taken by the Assessee in the Cross Objections.
Since we have already dismissed Revenue’s appeals in the above- mentioned assessment years on merit, we are not inclined to give our findings on technical issue raised by the Assessee in the captioned Cross Objections. Accordingly, Revenue’s appeals for A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 19 2019-20 are dismissed on merit and as such, the Cross Objections of the Assessee also stand dismissed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed.