DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. APPLE NATURAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD., NOIDA

Cases called twice. None appeared at the behest of the assessee. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Learned CIT(DR) representing Revenue vehemently argued during the course of hearing that CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate orders have erred in law/facts in reversing the corresponding assessment findings making “protective” additions, involving varying sums in these cases. There would be hardly any dispute that all these Revenue’s eight appeals have emanated from the department’s section 132 search action in M/s. Apple Group on 11.11.2014 leading to initiation of section 153C proceedings against both these assessees, namely, M/s. Apple Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Apple Mineral Pvt. Ltd. which finally culminated in identical protective additions in their respective hands. The department is indeed very fair during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)’s identical orders in case of Ashish Garg 3 | P a g e , 1951, 1952 & 1953/Del/2024; 1978, 1979, 1980 & 1981/Del/2024 making substantive additions to the very effect have been duly upheld.

Mr. Javed Akhtar, learned CIT(DR) informs us that the learned Assessing Officer has made the impugned protective additions in assessee’s hands to protect the interest of the Revenue going by Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC). 5. It is this factual backdrop that we proceed to treat Revenue’s appeal in as the “lead” case raising twin substantive grounds seeking to revise undisclosed income protective addition of Rs. 4,57,26,000/- and bogus share capital amounting to Rs.28,22,30,000/-; respectively.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing twin substantive grounds in this “lead” case i.e. and find no merit therein. We make it clear that the learned CIT(A) has not only upheld the substantive additions in case of the main searched person Sh. Ashish Garg, but also concluded in light of section 292C of the Act that going by the statutory presumption of the contents in the incriminating material seized during the course of search, there is no material to uphold the impugned protective addition in the assessee’s hands.

So far as Revenue’s latter substantive ground regarding share capital addition in the assessee’s case is concerned, it has been reversed on the ground that the same already stands assessed in preceding assessment year 2011-12 which has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. We thus see no reasons to accept its instant latter substantive grounds being an instance of double addition. This Revenue’s “lead” appeal in fails accordingly. Same order to follow in the Revenue’s remaining seven appeals seeking to revive identical protective additions which stand rejected in very terms.