KOLSA KHADAN KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT SILLEWADA PROJECT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the proceedings u/s 153C of the I.T.Act were initiated without any corroborative evidence ignoring the fact that Shri Prashant Bongirwar in answer to the Q no.19 has confirmed the receiving of amount from Unique Realities and in answer to the Q no.8 of the same statement he has confirmed the partners of Unique Realities as Shri Yele and Shri Patle, which clearly shows that the Unique reality referred to in the impounded material is the assessee firm M/s Unique Reality Builders anc Developers having the same partners namely Shri Yele and Shri Patle.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by A.O. as the assessee neither filed return in response to the notice under section 153C nor turned up to substantiate his claims during assessment proceedings Ju/s 153C despite repeated opportunity given, which clearly proves that the plea taken by assessee in appeals is mere afterthought.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.24,96,912/-on account of undisclosed income u/s 69A of the I.Τ. Act, without appreciating the fact that the addition of Rs.24,96,912/- was made on the basis of incriminating documents No. B-6 found and seized at the residential premise of the Shri. Vyankatesh Kunawar. This document contained the debit vouchers of M/s AVC Homes wherein part payment against plots was received in cash and the commission of Rs.24,96,912/-was also paid in cash to M/s Unique realities.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.92,31,514/-on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT Act, without in appreciating the fact that entries with regard to the 3 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 payments of Rs.92,31,514/- were found from the documents A-1/16 which was impounded from the business premises of M/s Saptagiri Builder and developers. Data in document A-1/16 clearly indicates that the amount of Rs.58,04,506/- was received in cash by M/s Saptagiri Builder & developers and Rs.34,27,008/- was received in cash by M/s Growell Developers from M/s Unique Realities against the part payment of sale/purchase of plots.

6. In this regard, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred by completely ignoring the entries found in the seized/impounded documents as mentioned above without appreciating the fact that such entries provided specific evidence with regard to the amounts received/paid by the assessee which are not accounted for and the assessee has not proved its genuineness. The AO has rightly added the amounts as undisclosed income and unexplained expenditure.

4 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 which is held to be received as on money. The assessee filed original return of income on 27/10/2018, declaring total income of ` 6,00,300. A notice under section 153C of Act was issued to the assessee on 18/02/2021 and served upon the assessee for filing return of income within 30 days of receipt of the notice in response to which the assessee has not filed its return of income under section 153C. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act, was issued along with detailed questionnaire on 26/03/2021, 31/02/2021 and 09/09/2021, requiring the assessee to furnish the information and document in support of their reply. However, yet the assessee chose not to file its return of income, as desired by the Assessing Officer. Further a final show cause notice under section 142(1) was sent to the assessee on 09/09/2021, requiring it to file the return of income and reply without any further delay but the assessee did not file any return of income or replies. Even after the final opportunity granted, the assessee did not filed any returns or replies. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that as the assessee has failed to file the returns of income and/or replies, the assessment under section 144 r/w section 153C of the Act was finalized on the basis of material available on record. The following additions were made by the Assessing Officer based on certain impounded documents:–

` 24,96,912 Undisclosed commission from AVC Homes Cash payment to Saptagiri Developers ` 58,04,506 Cash payment to Growell Developers ` 34,27,008 Total:– ` 1,17,28,426

5 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20

6. On appeal, before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted a detailed note of arguments, which was recorded by the learned CIT(A) in its impugned order vide Para–6.1.5 to 6.1.6, is also reproduced below for ready reference:–

“6.1.5. The fifth ground of appeal raised by the appellant is whether the AO is justified in law and fact in making an addition to the tune of Rs. 24,96,912/- as undisclosed income u/s 69A. The Ld. AR vehemently stated that the document found from the residence of Shri Vyankatesh Kunawar are loose papers and are dumb document. During the hearing, the Ld. AR has travelled through every page of voucher and showed that there has been no name of the appellant written on the voucher or not even any signature of the appellant firm is there. Ld. AR also submitted that on the remaining vouchers there is not even the name of the appellant mentioned in any symbolic or abbreviated form. The appellant has further submitted that the AO has demonstrated in the assessment order on page no. 3 table produced by the AO in Column No. 3 that the amount received is from customer. The Ld. AR vehemently stated. that these people are not the client of the appellant firm and furthermore there are pages other than debit vouchers of AVC Homes which contains name of different people to whom cash is paid. On putting debit voucher and pages containing name it is seen that the exact amount written on debit voucher is given to different persons and there is no name of the appellant amongst these names. In simpliciter, the commission amount is not paid to the appellant firm but to the people whose name appears on the pages. The appellant also submitted that the AO has failed in bringing on record any corroborative evidence to substantiate the claim that the appellant has received commission amount. There has been no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the claim of the AO. The appellant also challenged the addition by stating that the AO has invoked the wrong section for making addition under Sec 69A as Sec 69A provides for 6 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 unexplained money which deals with a situation where the assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account. A remand report was called from the Ld. AO for explanation on the assertion made by the appellant firm. The remand report (on the said Ground No. 5 of the appeal) held that the additions are made on the sound grounds. I am satisfied by the argument of the Ld. AR that the amount appearing on debit vouchers of the AVC Homes are actually relating to the different names appearing on the loose pages of Document B-6. The loose paper and debit vouchers coincide with each other giving credence to the argument of the Ld. AR that the amount is paid to different people and not to the appellant. Moreover, Shri Vynakatesh Kunnawar and Shri Prashant Bonginwar from whose possession the documents are seized stated nothing adverse against the appellant. Also there is no agreement between the appellant and the AVC homes to substantiate the say of the AO. The appellant has also provided the ITR and computation of the partners of the appellant firm where the commission income earned in individual capacity of partners is duly disclosed by the partners of the appellant firm. An astute observation brought on record by the learned AR that there are many calculation mistakes and duplicate entries in the quatum of additions so made this all shows that the assessment order framed is without scrutinizing the documents. The appellant has also provided the ITR and computation, audit report emphasizing that the prime nature of work of the appellant is development and sale of plots and commission is secondary income of the appellant firm. Also it is remarkable to mention that the identity of the name "unique" which is found in the seized document is not established as in some of the debit vouchers name "unique city" is mentioned which is nothing but the project name of AVC homes. This forces to mention that one to one nexus among debit voucher and appellant firm cannot be established. Law is well settled that burden is on the Revenue to establish the identity if any person is to be charged under the Act. Moreover, nothing is on record to show that Shri Vynakatesh Kunnawar has stated about the appellant that whatever the notings found were in respect of the appellant. No corroborative material is found. Reliance is placed on the catena of judgments which states that no addition can be made on the basis of abbreviated name found in diary without establishing a direct nexus with the assessee, as follows:-

7. Hon'ble Pune ITAT in the case of ITO, Ward-2(3), Pune v. Shri Ashok Keshvlal Oswal, dated 30/09/2013.

8. Hon'ble Pune ITAT in the case of Jagannath Eknath Lahoti (HUF) v. ITO, Ward-1(1), Pune, ITA.No.453/PN/2012, dated 11/02/2014.

9. Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Classic Motors Ltd, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 478 (Delhi).

10. Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sant Lal, [2020] 118 taxmann.com 432 (Delhi)

7 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20

11. Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Nanakchand Kanhiyalal V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 73 TTJ 585 (JP.) 12. Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Income-Tax Officer V. Balram Jakhar, [2006] 8 SOT 1 (ASR.)(URO). Also as the debit vouchers do not contain the title, signature, name of the appellant firm and neither are found from the possession of the appellant nor part of books of accounts of the appellant firm. Therefore, these vouchers are dumb documents and loose papers as far as the case of the appellant is considered. Further, no circumstantial evidence in the form of any unaccounted cash, jewellery or investments outside the books of account was found Thus, the impugned addition was made by the AO on grossly inadequate material or rather no material at all and as such, deserves to be deleted. The documents are said to be dumb only in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case of the appellant and has no bearing on any other case. As the documents are found from the possession of AVC Homes or the partners of the AVC Homes presumption of section 132(4A) goes against AVC Homes and other but not of that for the appellant. This proposition further gets supports from the following judgments as follows:- 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Sunita Dhaddha [2018] 100 taxmann.com 526 (SC) 7. The Hon'ble Jaipur ITAT in case of Jai Kumar Jain Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 11 SOT (Jaipur) (URO). 8. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2001) 118 Taxman 112 (IT AT- Ahmedabad) (Mag) 9. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Unique Organiors and Developers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT, 70 TTJ 131 10. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Vs. DCIT, 130 TTJ 42 (UO) Reliance is placed on the judgement following judgment where it has been held that no addition can be based on dumb documents. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, [1998] 1998 taxmann.com 2155 (SC). 10. The Mumbai ITAT in case of ITO v. Kranti Impex (P.). Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1229 (Mum.) of 2013, dated 28-2-2018]. 11. The Mumbai ITAT in case of Asstt. CIT v. Layer Exports (P.) Ltd. [20171 88 taxmann.com 620].

8 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20

9 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 A remand report was called from the Ld. AO for explanation on the assertion made by the appellant firm. The remand report (on the said Ground No. 6 of the appeal) held that it can be seen from the foregoing discussion that the AO has correctly made the additions. No relief shall be provided to the appellant. The remand report has not putforth any assertive evidences to prove the nature of transaction, is it on money or expenditure for the appellant with corroborative evidence not put forth by the learned the AO. I am convinced that the presumption arises against the Saptagirhi Builder and Developers and not against the appellant. A reliance is placed on the ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in the case of Unique Organiors and Developers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT, 70 TTJ 131 and Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Vs. DCIT, 130 TTJ 42 (UO) wherein it was held that presumption cannot be applicable to a third party from whose possession such documents have not been found by the Revenue. I am inclined towards the argument of the Ld. AR and emphasis on para number 64 and 73 of the written submission is made and accepted s, also that on the piece of paper "Not Accepted" is written. Without corroborative evidences the AO erred in making addition. The document founds are nothing more than dumb document in case of no corroboration. I find force in the argument of the appellant that there cannot be any addition based merely on the piece of loose papers. The additions need to be backed by cogent and reliable evidences. In the present case it can be seen from the assessment order that there has been no corroborative evidence brought forth by the AO. There has been no reference made to the document other than impounded material. Reliance is placed on the judgement following judgment where it has been held that no addition can be based on dumb documents.

4. The Mumbai ITAT in case of Asstt. CIT v. Layer Exports (P.) Ltd. [20171 88 taxmann.com 620].

5. The Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT, 87 ITD 35 (Del.).

7. The Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. IΤΟ [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Delhi). The other aspect raised by the Ld. AR is that no addition can be made under Sec 69C as there exists no expenditure done by the appellant. The conditions of Sec 69C are that the assessee must have incurred the expenditure and disallowance shall be made only if the explanation is not considered

10 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 satisfactory. The appellant vehemently denies any expenditure. There has been no further enquiry made by the AO. There is no evidence of such expenditure. Under such circumstances an addition cannot be made under Sec 69C in the hands of the appellant. Since the nature of transaction and the source of expenditure is not proved by the learned AO the addition under section 69C cannot be held good. Strength is drawn from the Judgment of CIT v. Lubtec India Ltd.(2009) 311 ITR 175 (Del). sTherefore, the Sixth ground of appeal is hereby adjudicated in the favor of the appellant and the addition made of Rs. 92,31,514/- is deleted and this ground is 'allowed' hereby.”

7. The learned CIT(A) had called for a remand report which indicated that the Assessing Officer was correct in his action, but the learned CIT(A) chose to disregard such report in his wisdom and has granted full relief.

12 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 referred to the order of the Metrocity Home, ITA no.165/Nag./2023, authored by one of us (A.M). But the facts are totally divergent because the nature of business is absolutely different. In that case, it was a case of difference between actual cost and sale deed treated as undisclosed income. There was denial by customers of paying on–money. Here, the assessee did not appear at all. The voluminous submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee before the first appellate authority has not addressed the evidentiary value of the incriminating documents coupled with the excruciating fact that there is no specific denial by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. The additions were based on payment vouchers maintained in regular course of business and cannot be brushed aside summarily. The assessment was validly initiated under section 153C of the Act because the assessee failed to controvert that there was absence of satisfaction. So, it cannot be permitted to take a diametric opposite stand to shift the burden to the other person. The learned Counsel for the assessee strenuously stressed that there is a project of Unique City and it cannot be linked with the assessee in some cases only. Buyt the glaring fact remains that such minor observations do not hid the main issue that these documents pertained to the assessee. The fact militates against the assessee particularly in view of the unequivocal submission s under section 132(4) of the Act clearly identifying the assessee of the person searched which postulates the underlying business connection and economic correlation. Section 153C is initiated upon by the Assessing Officer being satisfied that any books of account or documents seized or requisitioned pertains or any information contained therein relates to a person other than

13 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 person referred to in section 153A of the Act. The section was amended w.e.f. 01/06/2015 to negate the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd., [2018] 89 taxmann.com 10. This Special Leave Petition was dismissed against the High Court ruling that before issuance of notice under section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a conclusive satisfaction that documents belong to a person other than searched person. The reliance made by learned Counsel for the assessee on the above judgment which has favourably considered by the learned CIT(A) is misplaced, misconceived and unsustainable. The learned Counsel for the assessee has tried to create a confusion that in view of multiple entities with prefix unique relationship with Unique Realities Builders and Developers is not established. We fail to understand that how such an issue can be raised once the challenge to 153C proceedings is absent. The diametric opposite stand of the assessee is ergo jettisoned. The recalcitrant stand of the assessee before the Assessing Officer further creates doubt that perhaps the assessee is not coming with clean hands. It is worthwhile to note that even before the remand proceedings, the assessee failed to make any submissions to improve his case. The learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on various case laws are misplaced and unjustifiable because these are not universal law and can be applied only in these particular facts. She had not made any efforts to rope in any evidences whatsoever to strengthen her case. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and referring to the case laws cited before us by the learned Counsel for the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee failed to justify that additions are not 14 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 sustainable based on impounded documents. More denial of the transaction by raising a cobweb of nebulous assertions without backing up by strong evidence to repudiate the same is unconscionable. Hence we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and inclined to uphold the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue succeeds in effectively assailing the relief so granted by the learned CIT(A) in its entirety. Accordingly, both the appeals by the Revenue for A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 are allowed as discussed above.