RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :03/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 25/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

By way of present appeal, the above-named assessee challenges the bunch of five orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] all bearing dated 25.04.2025 for five different assessment year starting from assessment year 2015-16 to 2019-20. That order of the ld. CIT(A) arise because the assessee has challenged the order of the assessment for all these years passed u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ]by the Assistant to 820/JPR/2025 2 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur [ for short AO ]dated 28.03.2024 & 29.03.2024.

2. Since the issues involved in these appealsare inter related, identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each year relates to one assessee and therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order.

(APB Reference is of Relevant Year Paper Book) to 820/JPR/2025 3 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur Assessment Returned APB Returned Income APB Whether Year Income u/s as per 148 Assessment 139 completed u/s 143(3) 2015-16 34,60,490/- 01-08 34,60,490/- 09 06.09.2017 2016-17 46,60,360/- 01-07 46,60,360/- 08 2017-18 89,13,320/- 01-07 89,13,320/- 08 12.12.2019 2018-19 54,73,850/- 01-08 54,73,850/- 09 2019-20 18,85,000/- 01-08 18,85,000/- 09 24.09.2021

5. As there was search at the place of third party, namely Radha Mohan Totla, wherein some information in the form of Pen Drive containing various excel sheets was recovered from the associate of Shri Radha Mohan Totla (Maheshwari) who is acting as a finance broker and has admitted transactions mentioned in the excel sheets found in Pen Drive to have been carried out by him. He also stated that excel sheet contains the both cheque and cash transactions. Based on the statement ld. AO noted that the C represents cash transactions and INT represents the interest component. COM represent the cash commission earned or paid. A positive balance appearing in the column means the party has to pay to Shri Radha Mohan and a negative balances means Shri Radha Mohan Totla has to pay to the party. Based on the detailed discussion of that facts narrated in the statement the ld. AO extracted the details of the UDB sheet vide para 12 of his order. That sheet named UDB was found in the folder named School Home Work. Shri Radha Mohan Totla vide his statement given stated that UDB means unique Dream Builders to 820/JPR/2025 4 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur and contract no was 9829012900 and thereby the name of the assessee was submitted by him. Based on that facts so found a summons was issued by the Investigation Wing to Unique Dream Builder, Shri Ajit Singh. He happens to be the father of the assessee- appellant and owner of UDB Group. In response to that summons Shri Ajit Singh appeared and accepted that the transactions recorded in the Pen Drive stating that those belong to him in his individual capacity. To that effect he has submitted a letter dated 10.06.2022. [ Forms part of the assessment order page 24 to 26 for the lead case year i.e. 2015-16 ] confirming the transaction of Rs. 66,58,055/- and thereby owned that transaction.

Since the identity of the entity and the details provided by the Radha Mohan Totla [ for short RMT] was found correct and considering that information the case of the assessee and that of M/s Unique Dream Builders Private Limited (UDB) was re-opened.

After a detailed discussion on all these facts and considering the seized material the additions in respect of gross advances given and interest expenditure on it was made by AO in the reassessment order for different years which are tabulated below:

Assessment Addition u/s 69A Alleged Unexplained Year Interest/ Commission 2015-16 68,58,000/- 1,58,000/- 2016-17 1,25,14,955/- 4,92,100/- to 820/JPR/2025 5 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur 2017-18 67,46,810/- 4,19,100/- 2018-19 37,72,725/- 6,07,615/- 2019-20 56,20,000/- 2,95,260/-

6. Aggrieved from the above orders of the ld. AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the order of the assessment on technical ground and that of the merits. The technical ground was that the reopening was bad in law which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and on merits of the dispute ld. CIT(A) granted the part relief to the assessee by applying peak credit theory as against the addition made by AO by treating all the gross advances / loans as unexplained and thereby order to tax the income for these years as tabulated here in below ; Assessment Addition u/s 69A Interest/Commission Year 2015-16 66,58,055/- 1,58,000/- 2016-17 - 4,92,100/- 2017-18 - 4,19,100/- 2018-19 - 6,07,615/- 2019-20 - 2,95,260/-

7. Feeling dissatisfied with that finding of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal for these five years. the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal ; to 820/JPR/2025 6 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur

1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld.AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 arbitrarily. 1.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the transactions found noted in the documents found from a third party as pertaining to assessee and thus erred in confirming the reopening of assessment without forming independent reason of belief regarding escapement of income. Appellant prays that the reassessment proceedings so initiated on borrowed satisfaction and completed without disposing off objections raised by assessee is against the settled legal position and order so passed deserves to be set aside. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO regarding not allowing the assessee with opportunity of cross examination prior to drawing adverse inference on the basis of information found from third party, which is against the principle of natural justice and hence the order so passed deserves to be quashed. 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO that excel sheet namely “UDB” as found during search in the case of Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari Group belongs to Sh. Ravindra Singh Thakkar of UDB Group, even though neither name nor PAN of assessee was anywhere mentioned in excel sheet nor any hand writing has been identified. Hence the order so passed deserves to be quashed. 1.4 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. AO wherein the notice has been issued by JAO, hence the order so passed deserves to be quashed.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id.CIT(A) has erred in making an addition to the tune of Rs. 66,58,055/- on account of positive peak balance of transactions as noted in excel sheet found during search in the case of Radha Mohan Maheshwari, for which additional income is stated to have been offered in the hands of Sh. Ajit Singh by filing letter before Investigation Wing. Appellant prays that entries on the basis of which, such peak balance has been computed have been categorically disowned by assessee and moreover assessee has not filed any such letter, therefore addition made in the hands of assessee on the basis of such letter is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 2.1 That the Id. CIT(A) has further erred in making an addition on the basis of an altogether different theory without giving credence to the submissions filed. Hence the addition so made deserves to be deleted.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of Rs. 1,58,000/- u/s 69C of to 820/JPR/2025 7 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur the Income Tax Act, on allegation of interest/commission payment in respect of transactions found noted in Excel sheet, which did not pertain to assessee. It is prayed that addition made on the basis of sheet, which itself was not pertaining to assessee, is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted.

4. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld.AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 arbitrarily. 1.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the transactions found noted in the documents found at third party as pertaining to assessee and thus erred in confirming the reopening of assessment without forming independent reason of belief regarding escapement of income. Appellant prays that the reassessment proceedings so initiated on borrowed satisfaction and completed without disposing off objections raised by assessee is against the settled legal position and order so passed deserves to be set aside. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO regarding not allowing the assessee with opportunity of cross examination prior to drawing adverse inference on the basis of information found from third party, which is against the principle of natural justice. 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO that excel sheet namely “UDB” as found during search in the case of Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari Group belongs to Sh. Ravindra Singh Thakkar of UDB Group, even though neither name nor PAN of assessee was anywhere mentioned in excel sheet. 1.4 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. AO wherein the notice has been issued by Ld.AO, hence the order so passed deserves to be quashed.

2. That, ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of Rs. 4,92,100/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, on allegation of interest/commission payment in respect of transaction found noted in excel sheet (as stated in ground above_, which did not pertain to assessee. It is therefore prayed that addition made on the basis of sheet, which itself was to 820/JPR/2025 8 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur not pertaining to assessee, is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 2.1 That the Id. CIT(A) has further erred in considering the transactions as noted in excel sheet found during search in the case of Radha Mohan Maheshwari, for which additional income is stated to have been offered in the hands of Sh. Ajit Singh by filing letter before Investigation Wing. Appellant prays that assessee categorically disowned the transactions found noted and has been partly accepted by the authorities, therefore addition made in the hands of assessee alleging to be interest/commission on the basis of such excel is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 3. any any of the That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any grounds of appeal

either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grosslyerred in confirming the action of ld.AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 arbitrarily. 1.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the transactions found noted in the documents found at third party as pertaining to assessee and thus erred in confirming the reopening of assessment without forming independent reason of belief regarding escapement of income. Appellant prays that the reassessment proceedings so initiated on borrowed satisfaction and completed without disposing off objections raised by assessee is against the settled legal position and order so passed deserves to be set aside. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO regarding not allowing the assessee with opportunity of cross examination prior to drawing adverse inference on the basis of information found from third party, which is against the principle of natural justice. 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO that excel sheet namely “UDB” as found during search in the case of Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari Group belongs to Sh. Ravindra Singh Thakkar of UDB Group, even though neither name nor PAN of assessee was anywhere mentioned in excel sheet. to 820/JPR/2025

9. Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur 1.4 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. AO wherein the notice has been issued by Ld.AO, hence the order so passed deserves to be quashed.

2. That, Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of Rs. 4,19,100/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, on allegation of interest/commission payment in respect of transactions found noted in Excel sheet (as stated in in ground grou above), which did not pertain to assessee. It is therefore prayed that addition made on the basis of sheet, which itself was not pertaining to assessee, is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 2.1 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in considering the transactions as noted in excel sheet found during search in the case of Radha Mohan Maheshwari, for which additional income is stated to have been offered in the hands of Sh. Ajit Singh by filing letter before Investigation Wing. Appellant prays that assessee categorically disowned the transactions found noted and has been partly accepted by the authorities, therefore addition made in the hands of assessee alleging to be interest/commission on the basis of such excel is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted.

3. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal

either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grosslyerred in confirming the action of ld.AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 arbitrarily. 1.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the transactions found noted in the documents found at third party as pertaining to assessee and thus erred in confirming the reopening of assessment without forming independent reason of belief regarding escapement of income. Appellant prays that the reassessment proceedings so initiated on borrowed satisfaction and completed without disposing off objections raised by assessee is against the settled legal position and order so passed deserves to be set aside. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO regarding not allowing the assessee with opportunity of cross examination prior to drawing adverse inference on the basis of information found from third party, which is against the principle of natural justice. to 820/JPR/2025

10. Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO that excel sheet namely “UDB” as found during search in the case of Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari Group belongs to Sh. Ravindra Singh Thakkar of UDB Group, even though neither name nor PAN of assessee was anywhere mentioned in excel sheet. 1.4 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. AO wherein the notice has been issued by Ld.AO, hence the order so passed deserves to be quashed.

2. That, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of Rs. 6,07,615/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, on allegation of interest/commission payment in respect transactions found noted in Excel sheet (as stated in ground above), which did not of pertain to assessee. It is therefore prayed that addition made on the basis of sheet, which itself was not pertaining to assessee, is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 2.1 That the Id. CIT(A) has further erred in considering the transactions as noted in excel sheet found during search in the case of Radha Mohan Maheshwari, for which additional income is stated to have been offered in the hands of Sh. Ajit Singh by filing letter before Investigation Wing. Appellant prays that assessee categorically disowned the transactions found noted and has been partly accepted by the authorities, therefore addition made in the hands of assessee alleging to be interest/commission on the basis of such excel is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted.

3. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any grounds of appeal

either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 7.5 In the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld.AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 arbitrarily. 1.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the transactions found noted in the documents found at third party as pertaining to assessee and thus erred in confirming the reopening of assessment without forming independent reason of belief regarding escapement of income. Appellant prays that the reassessment proceedings so initiated on borrowed satisfaction and completed without disposing off objections raised by assessee is against the settled legal position and order so passed deserves to be set aside. to 820/JPR/2025

11. Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO regarding not allowing the assessee with opportunity of cross examination prior to drawing adverse inference on the basis of information found from third party, which is against the principle of natural justice. 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO that excel sheet namely “UDB” as found during search in the case of Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari Group belongs to Sh. Ravindra Singh Thakkar of UDB Group, even though neither name nor PAN of assessee was anywhere mentioned in excel sheet. 1.4 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. AO wherein the notice has been issued by JAO, hence the order so passed deserves to be quashed.

2. That, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of Rs.2,95,260/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, on allegation of interest/commission payment in respect of commission payment transactions found noted in Excel sheet (as stated in ground above), which did not pertain to assessee. It is therefore prayed that addition made on the basis of sheet, which itself was not pertaining to assessee, is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 2.1 That the Id. CIT(A) has further erred in considering the transactions as noted in excel sheet found during search in the case of Radha Mohan Maheshwari, for which additional income is stated to have been offered in the hands of Sh. Ajit Singh by filing letter before Investigation Wing. Appellant prays that assessee categorically disowned the transactions found noted and has been partly accepted by the authorities, therefore addition made in the hands of assessee alleging to be interest/commission on the basis of such excel is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted.

3. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

“Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 1.4 In these grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged the action of ld.AO in reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act on various grounds.

Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out in the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Group on 23.11.2021. One of the assessee in the said group, Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari (also known as Radha Mohan Totla) had been indulging in giving and taking cash loans, thereby undertaking cash transactions on a large scale. Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari was also covered in the search on 23.11.2021. During the course of search, electronic data comprising of excel sheets in seven pen-drives were seized from the residence of Shri ArunSnehi, who was also covered under search on 23.11.2021 as a part of Nirmal Kumar Bardiya group and was a close associate and confidant of Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari. Subsequently, during the course of proceedings under Income tax Act, 1961, Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari admitted the ownership of the pen drives and the data contained therein, in his statements under oath during the search and also in his post search statements. On being asked about the nature of transactions recorded in these files present in these pen drives, Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari stated that these transactions pertain to business transactions, interest and commission transactions with various parties. He also added that these sheets contain both cheque as well as cash transactions. As noted by ld.AO in assessment order, in one of the pen drive in the folder named “School Home Work” a sheet under name “UDB” was found. On being asked, Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari stated that the sheet “UDB” has transactions entered into by him with one namely Unique Dream Builders. As per ld.AO, during the search and post search proceedings Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari provided the following details:– It was noted by ld.AO that as the phone number mentioned in above table was linked with PAN of the assessee, i.e. AHXPS7165C, and since assessee as well his father Sh. Ajit Singh are directors in Unique Dream Builders, (P) Ltd. it was concluded by ld.AO that excel sheet “UDB.xls” is related to Unique Dream Builders (PAN- AHXPS7165C). It is relevant to state here that summon u/s 131 was issued by Investigation Wing to Unique Dream Builders. In compliance to summons, Sh. Ajit Singh, father of assessee appeared and accepted the transactions recorded in pen drives in his individual capacity vide letter dated 10.6.2022 and his undisclosed income was computed at Rs. 66,58,055/-. These facts were within the knowledge of ld.AO, still the cases of assessee were reopened solely for the reason that the phone to 820/JPR/2025

13. Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur number of assessee was mentioned (as contact person) in the excel sheet found. With this factual background, reopening is challenged on following issues:

1.

1. Notice u/s 148 was issued by ACIT, Circle- 1, Jaipur, i.e. jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required u/s 151A; 2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice is u/s 143(2) of the Act 3. Assessment was reopened solely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing and without forming independent reason of belief regarding escapement of income; 4. Reopening of Assessment on the basis of excel sheet named “UDB.xlx” having full name “Unique Dream Builders”, and wherein no PAN was noted.

5. Reopening of Assessment on the basis of same excel sheet, on the basis of which assessment of another sister concern, M.s Unique Dream Builders (P) Ltd. was also reopened, which implies that there was no independent application of mind.

6. Reassessment proceedings were completed without disposing off objections raised by the assessee; 7. Reassessment proceedings were completed without affording assessee with opportunity to cross examine third party from whom material relied upon was found/ whose statements were heavily relied upon for reopening; Detailed submission made by assessee in this regard before ld.CIT(A) was summarily rejected by ld.CIT(A). In fact, ld. CIT(A) has not addressed all the above aspects and has confirmed the reopening solely on the observation of ld.AO that full name against the column “contact details” belonged to assessee was linked with PAN of assessee. Detailed submission made by assessee in this regard remained uncontroverted. In fact, ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the aspects mentioned at serial no. 1, 4 and 5 above. While rejecting the grounds of assessee, ld.CIT(A) has referred a decision of hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of GeetabenDineshchandra Gupta vs ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 346 (Gujrat), which is not applicable to the facts of present case. In that case, as per information of Investigation Wing, assessee was alleged to be a mere entry provider and not engaged in any genuine business activities. Also, assessee had disclosed total income of Rs.1,42,694/- as against huge turnover of Rs.24,10,82,501/- and had not shown any income from commission received on providing accommodation entries and there was detailed investigation by the Income Tax Department, which substantiated the case of the department. It was thus held that formation of belief by ld.AO on the basis of material derived during inquiry/investigation was justified. Whereas in the present case, neither transactions alleged are part of regular books of accounts of assessee nor of third party and merely on the basis of excel sheet found in third party search, assessment has been reopened by ld.AO, that too without making any detailed enquiry/ recording of statements of such third parties. With such observations of ld.CIT(A), detailed submission on each of the aspects on which assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment are dealt with as under:

1. Notice u/s 148 issued by ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur: In this regard, at the outset, details of various notices issued during re assessment proceedings are tabulated as under: (APB Reference is of Relevant Year Paper Book) Particulars 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Date 30.03.2023 30.03.2023 30.03.2023 30.03.2023 31.03.2023 Section under 148 148 148 148 148 which notice issued Authority issuing ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- notice 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur APB 10-11 09-10 09-10 10-11 10-11 Particulars 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Date 26.06.2023 26.06.2023 26.06.2023 26.06.2023 26.06.2023 Section under - 143(2) 143(2) 143(2) 143(2) which notice issued Authority issuing Manufacturing & ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- notice P&L A/C of 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur Kemi Veneers provided instead of 143(2) notice APB 12 11-15 11-15 12-16 12-16 Date 15.12.2023 15.12.2023 15.12.2023 15.12.2023 15.12.2023 Section under 144B 144B 144B 144B 144B which notice issued Authority issuing NFAC NFAC NFAC Faceless Faceless notice Assessing Assessing Officer Officer APB 13 16 16 17 17 Date 18.01.2024 18.01.2024 18.01.2024 18.01.2024 18.01.2024 Section under 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) which notice issued Authority issuing Faceless Faceless Faceless Faceless Faceless notice Assessing Assessing Assessing Assessing Assessing Officer Officer Officer Officer Officer APB 14-17 17-21 17-21 18-22 18-22 Date 09.02.2024 09.02.2024 09.02.2024 09.02.2024 09.02.2024 Section under 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) which notice issued Authority issuing ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle-1, ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- notice 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur Jaipur 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur APB 18-20 22-24 22-24 23-25 23-25 Date 17.02.2024 17.02.2024 17.02.2024 17.02.2024 17.02.2024 Section under Show Cause 142(1) Show Cause 142(1) Show Cause to 820/JPR/2025 15 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur which notice issued Notice Notice Notice Authority issuing ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle-1, ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- notice 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur Jaipur 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur APB 23-50 27-29 27-55 28-31 28-57 Date 22.02.2024 22.02.2024 22.02.2024 22.02.2024 22.02.2024 Section under 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) which notice issued Authority issuing ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle-1, ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- notice 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur Jaipur 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur APB 51-53 30-32 56-58 32-34 58-60 Particulars 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Date 29.02.2024 29.02.2024 Section under Show Cause Show which notice issued Notice Cause Notice Authority issuing ACIT, Circle-1, ACIT, notice Jaipur Circle-1, Jaipur APB 35-65 38-68 Date 28.3.2024 29.3.2024 29.3.2024 29.3.2024 29.3.2024 Section under Order u/s Order u/s Order u/s 147 Order u/s Order u/s which notice issued 147 147 143(3) 143(3) Authority issuing ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle-1, ACIT, Circle- ACIT, Circle- notice 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur Jaipur 1, Jaipur 1, Jaipur From perusal of above, it is evident that the assessment in the present case has been reopened as well as completed without following provisions of section 151A, which provides procedure for “Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment” while issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act as well as subsequent notices. Kind attention of the hon’ble bench is invited to notification no.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 issued by CBDT in terms of section 151A, para 3 of which provides that notices for assessment/re assessment/re-computation under Faceless Assessment Scheme shall be issued through “Automated Allocation , in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee.”, i.e. by FAO, whereas, in the case of assessee, notice u/s 148 as well as subsequent notices have been issued by ACIT Circle 1 Jaipur, i.e. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). It is pertinent to note here that two notices, i.e. dated 15.12.2023 and 18.01.2024 only were issued by FAO. It is been stated in assessment order that “the case was transferred on 23.1.2024 from Faceless to JAO under the provision of section 144(8) of the Act.” However, the fact is that, initial notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 itself was issued by JAO and not by FAO. Moreover, even if for argument’s sake it is presumed that the reopening being based on third party search, and therefore assessment to 820/JPR/2025 16 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur for the same was not to be done in Faceless manner, then too assessment ought to have been done by Assessing Officer of Central Range (after following due procedure to transfer the case) and not by JAO. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO and FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO which could issue notice under section 148 and not JAO. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above case has went on to hold that when an authority acts contrary to law, the said act of the Authority is required to be quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law and the person seeking to quash such an action is not required to establish prejudice from the said Act. An act which is done by an authority contrary to the provisions of the statue, itself causes prejudice to assessee. All assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law and by following the procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, when the Income-tax Authority proposes to take action against an assessee without following the due process of law, the said action itself results in a prejudice to assessee. Therefore, there is no question of petitioner having to prove further prejudice before arguing the invalidity of the notice. Some other cases wherein this position of law laid above, has been affirmed are as under: Ganesh NivruttiJagtapv. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 166 taxmann.com 168 (Bombay) Held: Where notice issued under section 148A (b) and section 148 in respect of returns filed by assessee was not issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as was required by provisions of section 151A, proceedings initiated under section 148 would not be sustainable. Dosch Pharmaceutical (P.) Ltd. v Income-tax Officer [2024] 166 taxmann.com 216 (Bombay) Held: Only Faceless Assessing Officer can issue notice under section 148 and not Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Jatinder Singh Bhanguv. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana) Held: Scheme of faceless assessment applies from stage of show cause notice under section 148, and its object would be defeated if such notices are issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Mettler Toledo India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165 taxmann.com 541 (Bombay) Held: Where reassessment notice was issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by faceless Assessing Officer, as was required by provisions of section 151A read with Notification No. 29/2022, dated 29-3-2022, since JAO had no to 820/JPR/2025 17 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur jurisdiction to issue impugned notice, proceedings initiated under section 148 would were to be quashed. Navita S. Hetampuriav. Income-tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 424 (Bombay) Held: Where reassessment proceedings were initiated by jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by Faceless Assessing Officer as required under section 151A, such proceedings were to be quashed. Paras Mahendra Shah v. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 546 (Bombay) Held: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148, jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice, same is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions of section 151A. PoojaVaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165 taxmann.com 725 (Bombay) Held : Where re-assessment notice was issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by Faceless Assessing Officer as required by provisions of section 151A, impugned notice was to be quashed and set aside. PravinaJagdish Patel v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 164 taxmann.com 659 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as is required by provisions of section 151A, impugned notice issued by JAO would be quashed Reliance JioInfocomm Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165 taxmann.com 547 (Bombay) Held: As per provisions of section 151A under faceless assessment scheme notice under section 148 can be issued only by a Faceless Assessing Officer and not by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) was passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory faceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to be quashed. Vidhyadhar Shetty v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 265 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 was issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer, same was not in compliance with section 151A(2) and, thus, impugned notice was to be quashed and set aside. Surya Cotspin Ltd. v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 166 taxmann.com 265 (Punjab & Haryana)

to 820/JPR/2025 18 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur Held: Notice issued by JAO under section 148 and re-assessment proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under section 144B were contrary to provisions of law and same were to be quashed. Ram Narayan Sahv. Union of India [2024] 163 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati) Held: Where in notice under section 148 issued upon assessee, name of Income Tax Officer who was Assessing Officer had been reflected, impugned notice reflecting name of concerned Income Tax Officer was contrary to provisions of section 151A and schemes framed thereunder, whereby Income Tax Authority was required to undertake these proceedings in a ‘faceless’ manner, and accordingly, department was to be directed to withdraw impugned notice and issue fresh notices if permissible under law as per scheme read with section 151A. In view of abovementioned judgments, it is submitted that in the present case, notice u/s 148 as well as further notices u/s 143(2)/142(1)/Show Cause notice were issued by JAO, i.e. ACIT Circle 1 Jaipur and not through automated allocation as provided in Notification No. 18/2022, dated 29-3-2022 r.w.s. 151A, which is not in accordance with provisions of section 151A of the Act and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the consequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act In this regard, it is submitted that as is evident from table of notices issued as furnished in preceding paras, no notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ld.AO during the course of reassessment proceedings in A.Y. 2015-16. Basically, vide Communication Reference ID 100063886158 as appearing in the Income Tax Portal a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was stated to have been issued. However, when assessee downloaded the notice, “Manufacturing & P&L A/C of Kemi Veneers” was found on the link, instead of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. There are plethora of judicial pronouncements wherein it was held that once the assessee files the Return of income in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the ld. AO has to complete the assessment by assuming proper jurisdiction by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, which has not be done in A.Y. 2015-16. Thus, the completion of assessment without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is bad in law and also invalid in the eyes of settled position of law. In this regard reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements— Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Weedo Ventures (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 615 (SC)/[2024] 301 Taxman 624 (SC)[23-09-2024] Section 143, read with sections 120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under section 143(2) - However, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata completedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) - Assessee raised additional ground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction of Assessing Officer – Tribunal held that passing of assessment order under section 143(3), without issuing notice under section 143(2) was bad in law and was to be quashed - Revenue contended that legal issue was not raised by to 820/JPR/2025 19 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur assessee at earliest point of time namely, before Assessing Officer nor before Commissioner (Appeals) - High Court by impugned order held that assessee could not be prevented from raising question of jurisdiction which is an issue which goes to root of matter and, Tribunal had rightly permitted assessee to canvas issue and also rightly concluded that assessment was bad in law - Whether SLP filed by revenue against impugned order of High Court was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee] Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. S.K. Industries [2022] 141 taxmann.com 569 (SC)/[2022] 288 Taxman 651 (SC)[19-07-2022] INCOME TAX : SLP dismissed against impugned High Court order that where Assessing Officer, Circle 8(1) passed an assessment order under section 143(3) without issuing notice under section 143(2) and only in pursuance with notice issued by Asstt. CIT under section 143(2), who had no jurisdiction over assessee at relevant time, such assessment order was liable to be set aside. L.N. Hota& Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2008] 168 Taxman 313 (SC)/[2008] 301 ITR 184 (SC)/[2008] 215 CTR 481 (SC)[26-03-2008] Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Issue of notice - Assessment year 1997-98 - Pursuant to a notice under section 148, assessee filed its return - Thereafter Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) and completed assessment estimating income of assessee from business by applying provisions of section 145 - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) did not adjudicate issue of legality of assessment, but nevertheless maintained order of Assessing Officer - On second appeal, Tribunal rejected primary prayer of assessee that assessment made without issuance of notice under section 143(2) within a period of one year was invalid but on facts of case, observed that some reconsideration was called for and, accordingly, remitted matter to Assessing Officer for a fresh look - Assessing Officer, thereupon, made a fresh assessment under section 143(3)/254 - On appeal under section 260A High Court held that as assessment order had not come about by way of scrutiny, provisions of section 143(2) would not be applicable and as such there was no justification for Court in entertaining matter under section 260A - Whether since question of applicability of section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding based on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes [2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Section 2(14), read with section 143(2), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – Capital asset(Agricultural land) – Assessment year 2012-13 – Assessee filed its return of income in response to notice issued under section 148 – Assessing Officer completed reassessment proceedings undersection 143(3) read with section 147 and made addition on account of long-term capital gain arising from sale of agricultural land – Assessee contended that Assessing Officer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing any notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by assessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice under section 143(2) for framing assessment and absence of notice under section 143(2) impregnated proceeding with a jurisdictional defect, hence, to 820/JPR/2025 20 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur rendered it as invalid in eyes of law – Held, yes – Whether, therefore, assessment framed by Assessing Officer in absence of a notice under section 143(2) could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed – Held, yes [Paras 19 and 21] [In favour of assessee] 3. Assessment reopened solely on the basis of information received pursuant to search conducted at third party, Sh. Radha Mohan Totla and without making any independent enquiry: At the outset, as submitted above, it is reiterated that the case of the assessee firm was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act and ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of ld.AO in reopening the assessment solely on the basis of search conducted in the case of third party i.e. Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Group. As is evident from the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 18.01.2024 (APB 14-17), ld.AO observed that one of the assessee, Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari (also known as Radha Mohan Totala) had been indulging in cash transactions on a large scale in Jaipur, who was also covered in the search . Thus, the assessment was reopened without discussing any enquiry made by him to cross verify the details as stated to have been found in search. It is also pertinent to note here that the data contained in excel sheets found in the case of Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari was treated as pertaining to assessee solely for the reason that phone number of assessee was mentioned as contact details in the said list. Your honours would appreciate that neither name nor PAN of assessee was mentioned in the said sheet (and the name was mentioned in column “Business Associated”. In fact, such transactions were admitted by Sh. Ajit Singh, father of assessee in his individual capacity and he agreed to pay due taxes on the same. Even though all these facts were within the knowledge of ld.AO, he proceeded to reopen the assessment of assessee and made addition solely on the basis of information which does not relate to assessee individual. Even ld.CIT(A) has affirmed reopening of assessment on these observations, without giving any independent finding/ conclusion in respect of submission made by assessee. It is thus evident that the case was reopened solely on the basis of information received from some other official and without conducting further independent enquiries prior to formation of belief, therefore, reopening of the completed assessment is without independent application of mind and is bad in law. It is submitted that the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings has to be judged with regard to the material available with the assessing officer and that too by framing the opinion strictly based on the documents and information in possession, that certain income has escaped assessment and not in a mechanical manner as has been done in the case in hand. The re-opening of the case based on the borrowed satisfaction on the information provided by some other official without in any manner recording his own independent satisfaction deserves to be held illegal. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High court in case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110 wherein it has been held as under: to 820/JPR/2025 21 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur Reassessment – Notice – Condition precedent – Formation of belief that income escaped assessment – Assessing Officer treating share application money as bogus accommodation entries – Payments through banking channel and companies investing money genuine – No independent application of mind by Assessing Officer but acting under information from investigation wing – Notice to be quashed – Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148. The hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Uma Strips Ltd. vs DCIT in vide orders dt. 11.05.2022held as under: 9. From the above, we find that there is no live link presented by the AO between the material available with him i.e. the report of the investigation and to reason to belief that the assessee has tried to evade the assessment for the particular year in question. Simply stating and doubting that the assessee is involved in obtaining accommodation entries without providing proof, reason, information to back-up the claim cannot be considered as a valid reason to issue notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. There is no independent application of mind that could be deciphered from the reasons recorded. There is no reference to examination of the returns filed and whether the entries taken or on account of bogus capital, a balance sheet item or on account of bogus sales or purchases on account of revenue account. As per the record and the reasons recorded, no enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to belief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment.

In the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some other officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of some third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and no independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. Thus, it is submitted that since there was no independent application of mind by ld. AO, while recording the satisfaction of escapement of income before issue of notice u/s 148 and he simply proceeded on borrowed satisfaction reached by some other officials without verifying the same, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated u/s 148 deserves to be held bad in law. 4 & 5. Reopening of Assessment on the basis of excel sheet namely udb.xls., which did not mention PAN of assessee and moreover, on the basis of same sheet, assessment of another sister concern, M/s Unique Dream Builders (P) Ltd. was also reopened, which implies that there was no independent application of mind: In this regard, as stated above, assessment was reopened on the basis of excel sheet UDB.xls. found during search proceedings in the case of Sh. Radha Mohan Totla. Your goodself would appreciate that Excel sheet found from the data seized during search of Sh. Radha Mohan Totla, neither mentioned name of assessee nor of UDBPL and rather mentioned merely Unique Dream Builders, which was basically for the reason that all the individuals as well as group entities of Thakkar family are commonly known as UDB group. It was probably for this reason that name of excel sheet was “UDB.xls”. In fact, there is neither any proprietorship nor any partnership concern with the name “Unique Dream Builders”. It was submitted before ld.AO that phone number of assessee was stated merely as contact number, however adverse inference was drawn solely for the reason that such phone number was found to be linked with PAN of assessee. It is also pertinent to note here that, in extracts of statements of Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari as conveyed to assessee vide show cause notice (APB 23- 50) and also reproduced in Assessment order, there is no question seeking clarification, as to whom entries found noted in UDB.xls pertained rather statements merely clarify general modus operandi and terminology used in data found etc. In fact, ld.AO himself in Assessment order has observed that “Therefore, identity of person is confirmed and it is concluded that excel sheet “UDB.xls” is related to Unique Dream Builders (PAN – AHXPS7165C).” These remarks also are self-contradictory as it is concluded that excel sheet is related to UDB (though no entity exists with such name) and not to assessee individual. It is submitted that separate proceedings u/s 148 were also initiated in the case of a company M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 by presuming that the sheet referred in above para titled as “UDB” relates to the company M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. and once again in the hands of the assessee also, it is alleged that the said same sheet pertained to the assessee and the transactions noted are unrecorded transactions of the assessee. to 820/JPR/2025 23 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur Your honours would appreciate that at one place, department has treated “UDB” as “UDBPL” and has reopened assessments and at the same time has interpreted the same to be pertaining to assessee, which clearly shows that there was no independent application of mind by ld.AO in entire proceedings. In fact, no effort whatsoever was made to even confirm that to whom the transactions noted in such excel sheet actually pertained. Moreover, as stated above, a summon u/s 131 of the IT Act 1961 was issued by the Investigation wing of the department to unique Dream builders. In compliance to which Sh. Ajit Singh (Director of Unique Dream Builders Pvt Ltd) vide his letter dated 10.06.2022 (Common Paper Book APB 01-03) accepted the transactions found recorded in the pen drive seized from Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari in his individual capacity and accordingly offered income on such transaction and also paid taxes on it. The copy of letter dated 10.06.2022 by Sh. Ajitsingh is also referred by ld.AO in show cause notice wherein at point no. 1 of the letter it is mentioned that- “That all the transactions found noted in the ledger account titled as “UDB” are carried out by him in his individual capacity with Shri Radha Mohan Totla and do not relate to any of his family member or the group company/ firm where he is director/partner/proprietor.” Accordingly, the income on account of entries found noted in excel sheet named as “UDB” as seized from the possession of Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari is owned and admitted by Sh. Ajit Singh in his individual capacity and in AY 2015- 16, which has been duly considered by ld.AO. However on same set of information, the additions are again made in the hands of the assessee which depicts the dual approach taken by the department wherein at one stage, the papers were accepted as pertained to one Shri Ajit Singh and at a later stage for another assessment year, same transactions are alleged as carried out by the assessee and not by Shri Ajit Singh without assigning any reasons to deviate from such findings. It is therefore submitted that Sh. Ajit Singh had in very categorical terms already accepted the transactions found noted in the excel sheet titled as “UDB” with Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari to be carried out by him in his individual capacity and offered additional income on peak theory basis and even paid part of the taxes on such income and these facts are also accepted by the department. It is thus submitted that the same information cannot be used against two different assessees for two different assessment years without there being any change in the entries noted in the excel sheet. It is settled proposition of law that department cannot resort to pick and choose theory in Income Tax proceedings and assessment should not be made on mere assumptions and presumptions. In view of above, it is submitted that the assessment has been reopened as well completed without independent application of mind, which is not in accordance with law and order passed u/s 147 deserves to be quashed.

7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above.” CIT vs Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the addition was based on third party information gathered by Investigation wing then addition cannot be made unless such information is provided to the assessee and opportunity of cross examination is provided more so when assessee placed on record all the evidences. The relevant findings are as under: Headnote: Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to appellant, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to appellant, who on other hand, had prima facie discharged initial burden of substantiating purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and fact of payment through cheques, VAT Registration of sellers and their Income-tax Return - He held that purchases made by appellant was acceptable and disallowance was to be deleted - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed judgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee] (403 ITR 183)SunitaDhadda, order dt 28.03.2018 SLP (SC)

to 820/JPR/2025 26 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and also Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench as below was upheld: “Their Lordships ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and ROHINTON FALL NARIMAN Ji.- dismissed the Department's special leave petition against judgment dated July 31, 2017, of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.-B,L_TA. No. 197 of 2012 whereby the High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,00,000 of "on money" said to have been received with respect to subject land of the assessee holding that the question what was the price of the land at the relevant time, was a pure question of fact and that unless it was established on record by the Department, that as a matter of fact, the consideration did pass to the seller from the purchaser, the Department had no right to make any additions, especially since none of the witnesses were examined before the Assessing Officer, and the assessee did not have any opportunity to cross-examine them” [Emphasis Supplied] Hon’ble Jaipur Bench of Tribunal in the case of Sh. Pramod Jain vs. DCIT has relied upon the view taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in Andaman Timbers and held that the statements of witness cannot be made sole basis of making assessment without giving an opportunity of cross examination and consequently it is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. Hon’ble Ahmedabad bench of ITAT also in the case of Smt. Sunita Jain vs ITO quashed the assessment order by placing reliance on Apex Court judgement in the case of Andaman Timber (cited supra) as entire assessment was based upon the statements of Sh. MukeshChoksi, which were neither supplied to assessee nor was opportunity of cross examination was provided. Ld.AO and ld.CIT(A) have denied the opportunity of cross examination relying upon following case laws: C. Vasantlal& Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206: On perusal of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order, it is seen that nowhere the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in this order that opportunity of cross examination need not be provided to the assessee even though the statement of third party has been recorded by some other officer (or even by assessing officer) that too behind the back of the assessee. Accordingly, the support derived by the Ld. AO on the afore-cited case of Hon’ble Supreme Court is totally misplaced. Further the facts of the cited case was that in the books of accounts of assessee, who was carrying on business as commission agent and broker, two payments to two different firms were noticed and the Ld. AO examined the partners of these two firms and they admitted to have entered into fictitious transaction with assessee and admitted these transactions to be bogus. On being argued before the Ld. Appellant Assistant Commissioner of not providing opportunity of cross examination of these partners to the assessee by the Ld. AO, the Ld. AAC provided the opportunity of cross examination and there also the partners of those firms could not say that these transactions were genuine. It is further submitted that while deciding the cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that in any case the opportunity to cross examine these persons have to 820/JPR/2025 27 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur been provided to the assessee. Thus, even in this cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was conscious about necessity of providing opportunity to the assessee of cross examination of the person whose statements have been recorded behind the back. Accordingly, this case is of no help to the department and on the contrary it supports the argument and submission made by the appellant that any adverse inference drawn on the basis of the statements of third party without informing the assessee about the material and without giving adequate opportunity to explain the same is against the principle of natural justice. Now coming to the another cited case of Nath International Sales Vs. UOI, AIR 1992 (Del.) 295, from perusal of the decision, it is seen that the firm Nath International Sales supplied imported valve and other material to the Railways in consequent to tender and it was alleged that the material was supplied to be of particular make on the basis of forged documents, the authenticated copies of which were furnished to the firm and after obtaining explanation the firm was blacklisted. There is no discussion and no finding in the afore-cited case about the right of cross examination to be not provided. In the case of State of J&K and others v. BakshiGulam Mohammad &anr., commission of inquiry was set up against Shri BakshiGulam Mohammad under the Jammu & Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 and in this case also Hon’ble Supreme Court has not observed that right to cross examination should not be given. Coming to the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of RameshwarLal Mali Vs. CIT 256 ITR 536 so cited by the ld. AO in support of not providing opportunity of cross examination, on going through the facts of the case as seen from the perusal of above cited order, it is noticed that facts are quite different. In this cited case, survey was carried out and statement of employees / salesman were recorded and moreover estimation of sale was made not only on the basis of statement but also on the basis of documents found during the course of survey and other facts including past history. In this back ground, Hon’ble High Court observed that no substantial question of law arises and appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Similarly, ld.CIT(A) has also relied upon decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Mahendra N. Chatterjee V/s Collector of Central Excise (1977) Tax LR 1754 (Cal.), which are not applicable to the present case being given in different set of facts. It is a settled principle of law that no liability could be fastened upon assessee on the basis of third-party information/ statements unless the same is provided to assessee. Thus, in the scenario, burden lies upon the department to prove the allegation that the transactions found in excel sheet were related to assessee. In view of above, it is submitted that re-assessment completed by ld.AO without providing opportunity of cross examination is against the principle of natural justice and deserves to be quashed.

Grounds of Appeal

No. 2 & 2.1: In these grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the part of addition out of total addition made by ld.AO u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, by alleging that assessee has entered into loans taken/given transactions with Sh. Radha Mohan Maheswari from undisclosed sources. Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal, as stated above are that addition was made solely on the basis of entries found in excel sheet “UDB.xls” as found during search proceedings of Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari in the category of “cash loan given and taken”. During the course of assessment proceedings, detailed submission was made by assessee, wherein it was explained that assessee had not entered into any transaction whether through cheque or in cash with Sh. Radha Mohan Maheswari. It was also explained that name of assessee was mentioned in excel sheet as found in pen drive just as a contact person and this is also evident from the fact that name of assessee was mentioned under the head “Business associated”. It was also explained that, during the proceedings u/s 131 in the case of M/s UDBPL, Sh. Ajit Singh admitted before Investigation Wing having entered certain transactions with Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari. Also, a sum of Rs. 66,58,055/- was offered by Sh. Ajit Singh on peak basis. However, ld.AO still proceeded to make addition of gross amount of financial transactions noted in Excel sheet and as alleged as loans taken/given by assessee. Ld. CIT(A), on the observations that as per excel sheet, assessee has given as well as taken money, applied peak credit theory and accordingly allowed part relief. Details of additions confirmed by ld.CIT(A), against which assessee has preferred present appeal is as under: Assessment Addition u/s 69A Interest/Commission Year 2015-16 66,58,055/- 1,58,000/- 2016-17 - 4,92,100/- 2017-18 - 4,19,100/- 2018-19 - 6,07,615/- 2019-20 - 2,95,260/- With this factual background, it is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has further misinterpreted admission of transactions found in excel sheet by Sh. Ajit Singh as accepting transactions in the name of the group, whereas as stated above, fact is that there is no concern with name “UDB” as is the name of excel sheet and moreover, Sh. Ajit Singh has specifically mentioned transactions being carried in his individual capacity and which has not been controverted. At this juncture, it is submitted that it is settled law that mere writing any transaction in ones own record including on computer without the knowledge or supporting, signatures, handwriting etc. of other person and the writing of such transactions behind his / her (other person’s) back cannot make the other person liable for the transactions and also the consequential effect cannot be given against the other person and simultaneously it cannot bind / make liable to the other person from the entry / transaction (s). Reliance is placed on CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla and Others, AIR (1998) Supreme Court 1406. Also, various courts have consistently held that documents found during third party search cannot be solely to 820/JPR/2025

29. Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur relied upon for taking any adverse view unless any corroborative evidence is brought on record by the department, which clearly proves such documents being pertaining to the assessee. In this regard, reliance is placed on: [2024] 161 taxmann.com 536 (Surat-Trib.) ACIT v. Shanker NebhumalUttamchandani Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Illustrations) - Assessment year 2020-21 - Assessing Officer made certain addition as unexplained money and unexplained interest on basis of an image retrieved from digital device found in premises of third party during search - It was found that figure of principal amount and interest amount in no way could be correlated with each other - There was no material on record to suggest that such figure was confronted with third party nor addition was based on his statement - Whether there was no justification for making such addition in crores without any independent or corroborative material on record - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee] [2025] 173 taxmann.com 399 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central v. Mahalaxmi Infra contract Ltd. Section 69C, read with section 69A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Scope of provision) - Assessment years 2017-18, 2020-21 and 2021-22 -Authorised person conducted search upon a group and seized various documents -Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount as unexplained income of assessee under section 69A on account of cash loan received by assessee from aforesaid group – He also made addition of certain amount towards cash payment of interest as unexplained expenditure under section 69C - Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition towards cash loan but upheld addition made on account of interest paid - Whether since apart from unsigned excel sheet recovered from third party there was no corroborative evidence to substantiate that assessee had paid interest in cash to third party, addition made on account of interest paid could not be sustained - Held, yes [Paras 26 and 27] [In favour of assessee] [2024] 159 taxmann.com 179 (Karnataka) Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax v. Sunil Kumar Sharma Section 153C, read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure -Assessment of any other person (Recovery of loose sheets of paper) - Assessment years2012-13 to 2018-19 - Whether it is established in law that a sheet of paper containing typed entries and in loose form, not shown to form part of books of account regularly maintained by assessee or his business entities, do not constitute material evidence - Held, yes -Whether therefore, action taken by respondent/revenue against assessee based on material contained in diaries/loose sheets, were contrary to law and thus, impugned notices under section 153C were required to be set aside, as same were void and illegal - Held, yes [Para26] [In favour of assessee] [2019] 109 taxmann.com

90. (Bangalore - Trib.)Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore v. Dr. RanjanPai Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure - General (Documents seized in course of search) - Assessment year 2007-08- A search to 820/JPR/2025

30. Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur and seizure was carried out in residential premises of assessee - Apart from assessee's case, search proceedings were also carried out in case of one 'A', in course of which, an incriminating document was seized showing that assessee had made payment of Rs. 4.50 crores for purchase of land - On basis of said document, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 4.50 crores to assessee's income -Whether for purposes of making any document to be incriminating material, it is necessary that document should be found from lawful custody of a person who is lawfully and naturally responsible for possessing it - Held, yes - Whether since, in instant case, document was neither written by 'A' nor she was aware of content, nor she was aware who had written document, it could be concluded that said document did not belong to assessee and same could not be used as incriminating material on basis of which impugned addition could be made - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Assessing Officer was to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 15 and 16] [In favour of assessee] Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sant Lal Delhi HC (2020) 195 DTR (Del) 203 has held as under, (headnote reproduced) Income from undisclosed sources-Addition under s.69A-Material discovered during search of third person-Tribunal found that the Revenue has placed on record statement of BM and AS but still Revenue has failed to establish link between the information noted in abbreviated form and the assessee- Revenue has not been able to produce any cogent material which could fasten the liability on the assessee-CIT(A) has also examined the assessment record and has observed that the AO did not make any further inquiry/investigation on the information passed on by the Dy. CIT- No attempt or effort was made to gather or corroborate evidence in this relation- No substantial question of law arises for consideration- CIT vs. Mahabir Prasad Gupta (IT Appeal No. 814 of 2015, dt. 2020th Oct, 2015) followed. Further reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: Naren Premchand Nagda v ITO (ITA No. 3265/Mum/2015) – In this case, search was conducted at the premises of builder. The statement of key person of the group was recorded who stated that the assessee had paid cash to the group. When the statement of the key person was put to the assessee, he denied of making any payment in cash. However, the department made addition by relying on the statement of key person of the group. The Hon'ble Tribunal relying on series of judicial pronouncements held that in absence of any evidence found against the assessee, no addition can be made on the basis of documents found from the premises of third party and the statements recorded during the course of search conducted in third party premises. It may be noted that in this case the transaction of purchase of property by the assessee from the builder has not been denied by the assessee. Further, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of this, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed. Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ

36. (Ahd)(UO)] – In this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of third party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal is as to 820/JPR/2025

31. Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur under (Head Note) "Held that no evidence could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that in fact the assessee had paid 'on money' to the developers. No document containing signature of the assessee or handwriting of the assessee to corroborate the above making of payment by the assessee was found during the course of the search. Merely recording made by a third party or statement of a third party could not be treated as so sacrosanct so as to read as a positive material against the assessee. Therefore, addition in the hands of the assessee on account of 'on-money' was not justified ACIT v. Prabhat Oil Mills [52 TTJ 533 (Ahd)] – In this case, the department relied upon certain notings in the seized diary found from the premises of third party and contended that the assessee had made sales outside the books of accounts. However, the assessee denied of having made any sales outside the books of accounts. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that once the assessee denies the transaction, the onus was on the Assessing Officer to prove with corroborative evidence that the entries in the seized diary represented sales outside books of accounts. The Hon'ble Tribunal further held that mere entries in the accounts of third party was not sufficient to prove that assessee had indulged in transaction outside books of accounts. Further, in para 9 of the order, the Hon'ble Tribunal also rejected the argument of the department that the matter should be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. Detailed submission made above is summarized as under:

1.

1. Excel sheet namely “UDB.xls” did not contain transactions entered into by assessee; 2. Name of assessee as mentioned in “Business Associate” was solely as contact person; 3. There was no PAN mentioned in excel sheet, which also strengthens the case of assessee that excel sheet did not contain transactions related to assessee; 4. Sh. Ajit Singh, during proceedings before Investigation has admitted having entered into transactions with Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari in his individual capacity 5. Cases of assessee as well as M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. have been reopened on the basis of same Excel Sheet, which implies that there is no clarity with department itself as to whom such transactions pertained.

6. There is no specific averment by Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari regarding as to whom such excel sheet namely “UDB.xls” pertain. Still, adverse inference has been drawn solely on the basis of his statements, that too without affording assessee with opportunity of cross examination though specifically requested by assessee. It is thus submitted that assessee has never admitted these transactions as has been carried out by him with Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari and no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record so as to prove that transactions shown in excel sheet “UDB.xls” were entered into by assessee. Also, as stated above, Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari also has not specifically confirmed as to whom such transactions relate to and therefore no liability can be fastened upon assessee and it is requested before your honours that additions conformed by ld.CIT(A) on Peak Credit theory may please be deleted in the hands of assessee.

Ground of Appeal

No.3: In this ground of appeal, assessee has challenged the action of ld.CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by ld.AO on account of Interest/Commission alleged to have been paid in respect of loan transactions found noted in excel sheet (challenged in above grounds of appeal) for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2019-20. In this regard, as stated above, it is reiterated that excel sheet on the basis of which additions u/s 69A were made in the hands of assessee did not pertain to assessee and therefore addition on account of interest paid on such loans is also not sustainable. Since, this ground of appeal is consequential to above grounds of appeal, submission made above may be considered as made for this ground also.

9. To support the contention raised in the written submission the ld. AR of the assessee has also placed reliance on certain documents which are filed in the shape of paper book for each year separately and the papers filed for A.Y. 2015-16 are as below:

PAGE S. No. PARTICULARS NOS.

10. During the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition so sustained by the ld. CIT(A) are without any basis and has argued that the ld. AO has not provided the full text of statement of Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari and other related person or material from where it is evident that transactions belong to assessee itself. Moreover ld. AO has also not provided opportunity to cross examine Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari despite the specific request made by the assessee. He also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not take into consideration the fact that the income that he has confirmed has already been owned by the father of the assessee. The father of the assessee has also paid tax on that declared income. This fact has not been disputed by the revenue. He also stated that based on the same set of evidence addition was also made in the case of UDB.

11. On the other hand the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). He vehemently stated that the re-opening was done based on the information given by RMT in his statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act. to 820/JPR/2025 34 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur As there was no mention of the name Shri Ajit Singh revenue has rightly taxed and reopened the case of the assessee.

Record reveals that in that search, electronic data comprising of excel sheets in certain pen-drives were seized from the residence of Mr.ArunSnehi also covered under search on 23.11.2021 as a part of to 820/JPR/2025 35 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur Nirmal Kumar Bardiya group. Mr.Radha Mohan Maheshwarihad owned the pen drive found from the possession of Mr.ArunSnehi and admitted the data contained therein. The excel sheets from the pen drive data were analysed by the revenueand it was prime facie noted that these excel sheets have details comprising of the unaccounted transactions between Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari and others. In one of the pendrive in the folder named “School Home Work” a sheet under name “UDB” was found. On being asked Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari stated that the sheet “UDB” has transactions entered by him with one namely Unique Dream Builders[relevant findings are in assessment order at page 21 & 22]. Accordingly summon u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was issued by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department to Unique Dream Builders. In compliance to the summon Mr.Ajit Singh (One of the Director of Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd) has accepted the transactions recorded in pen drives in his individual capacity vide his letter dated 10.06.2022[ placed in the paper book page 1 to 3] and worked out his undisclosed income of 66,58,055/- for AY 2015-16. This fact is duly recorded and placed before the investigating officer vide letter dated 10.06.2022 the relevant contents of which reads as under:

On being resuming the office, Shri Ravinder Singh Thakkar has consulted with the other directors of the assessee company and during such discussions it transpires that Shri Ajit Singh, father of Ravinder Singh to 820/JPR/2025 36 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur Thakkar and director of the assessee company had carried out such transactions with Shri Radha Mohan Totla in his individual capacity and since he is commonly known as owner of the UDB group, probably Shri Radha Mohan Totla has mentioned the title of the ledger account of all these transactions as

1. That all the transactions found noted in the ledger account titled as "UDB" are carried out by him in his individual capacity with Shri Radha Mohan Totla and do not relate to any of his family member of the group company firm where he director partner/ proprietor.

3. That in the said ledger account the amounts are noted in coded form where after decimal two figures are mentioned meaning thereby Rs. 100 is stated 1.00 accordingly the peak balance of Rs. 66580.55 is actually Rs. 66,58,055/-.

4. That this additional income is offered by Shri Ajit Singh (Individual) to avoid the prolonged litigation and to buy the peace of mind. Since Shri Ajit Singh (Individual) has no liquid funds therefore, he could not be able to deposit the entire tax alongwith interest in one stretch and towards the first installment a challan of Rs. 5.00 lacs is enclosed herewith and ensure your goodself that the balance will be deposited within a month period. In the circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the income so offered by Shri Ajit Singh (Individual) may please be taken on record in his individual capacity and drop the proceedings as initiated in the case of the company and further allow the reasonable time for the deposit of balance tax liability alongwith interest as per law. It is further requested that looking to the old age of Shri Ajit Singh (Individual), this letter may please be treated as his acceptance of additional income and he may please be excused for personal presence.”

As noted in the arguments of the ld. DR and as that of the ld. AO that since Shri RMT has given the name of the assessee and the mobile number is of the assessee the notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2023. As is evident that all that notices of the years disputed in this bunch were all much after the receipt of this letter dated 10.06.2022 filed by Mr.Ajit Singh owning all the transactions alleged as belonging to the assessee and therefore, the same income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee.

Records also reveals that assessment orders consequent to the notice u/s 148 was also passed in the case of M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt Ltd., page 04-55 of the paper book filed wherein also the additions has been made on the same excel sheet “UDB” in the hands of company and notice u/s 148 has been issued to M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt Ltd. on 29.03.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 (APB 5), on 30.03.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 (APB 20),on 29.03.2023 for A.Y. 2019- 20 (APB 42).Meaning thereby that the authorities below for not sure as to in whose case the proceedings were to be initiated and thereby to 820/JPR/2025 38 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur to tax those transactions. Surprisingly as per records no notice appears to have been issued to the person who has owned these transactions before the Investigation Wing and that too before the issue notice to the assessee and UDB.

Thus, we note that undisputedly the excel sheet in the pen drive, was not in the name of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee disputed that addition so made in his hand stating that revenue cannot tax same evidence with more than one assessee. Even the person Mr.Radha Mohan Maheshwari has not specifically named the appellant to have carried out the transactions on his behalf. On the other hand Mr.Ajit Singh vide his letter dated 10.06.2022 has accepted the transactions recorded in the pen drive to have been carried out by him in his individual capacity. Moreover, case of the company namely M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. has also been reopened on same set of facts, without ascertaining the true ownership of the transactions. In these facts and circumstances it was more incumbent upon the ld. AO of the assessee to have examined Mr.Radha Mohan Maheshwari, the third party, and to have given opportunity to the appellant for cross examination to ascertain the truth and real ownership of these transactions. to 820/JPR/2025 39 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur As is evident that the impugned digital record shows a folder named as “School Home Work” inter-alia included the excel sheet having impugned transactions and this excel sheet was not in the name of appellant Shri Ravinder Singh Thakkar but was in the name of “UDB”. Not only that the bench noted from the extract of the statement of Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari, it is seen that there is no specific mention that Shri Ravinder Singh Thakkar, the assessee, has carried out transactions mentioned in the said excel sheet, on his own behalf. No document has been brought on record by the AO inferring that these transactions actually belong to appellant. Right from the day one, the assessee shouting that he has not undertaken these transactions. Even thereby the ownership is of UDB or that of the Ajit Singh has not been established in the post search that of the assessment proceeding in the case of the assessee.

Whereas on the other hand, there was letter on the record of AO from Mr.Ajit Singh wherein he has accepted the transactions to be carried out by him and he has further stated that these transactions do not relate to any of his family members or the group company / firm where he is director / partner / proprietor. Contents of this letter has not been controverted by any tangible material by the AO before making addition in the hands of assessee. It was argued before us to 820/JPR/2025 40 Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur that brand ‘UDB’ was created by Mr.Ajit Singh and thereby even the revenue has also reopened the case of Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. based on same information and same excel sheet. It was rightly pointed out by ld. AR that despite the fact that Mr.Ajit Singh of UDB has admitted these transactions to be belonging to him in its letter dated 10.06.2022 filed before Investigation Wing, the AO has not only reopened the case of assessee and also of M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt. Ltd. but has also made addition in these two entities.Hence the bench noticed that the addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts on record and has against the principles of taxation that same income cannot be taxed in more than one entity. Based on this discussion the bench does not concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and addition so sustained for an amount of Rs. 66,58,055/- is directed to be deleted. Thus, Ground No. 2 and 2.1 raised by the assessee are allowed.

In the result the appeal of the assessee in to 2019-20 are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/07/2025.