Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & MS. PADMAVATHY S
Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member:
The appellant, Shri Navdip Anilbhai Dosani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2023 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2016-17 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer with respect to seized cash amounting to Rs 2,05,000/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had sufficient cash balance as per its books of accounts as on the date of search / survey.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer with respect to seized gold valued at Rs 6,91,200 without appreciating the fact that the same pertained to different family members.
Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition on account of seized gold and cash ought not be made as the same be treated as sourced out of the income declared during the search / survey.”
Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee being an individual is into the business of developing real estate projects, filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.57,36,930/-. On the basis of search and seizure operation carried out in case of M/s. Ess Gee Group of cases and its associated key persons on 17.06.2015 during which various incriminating materials, documents, unexplained cash and jewellery were seized. On the basis of incriminating material notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were served upon the assessee and in response to which the assessee filed necessary details being the director in a group entity namely M/s. Ess Gee Sukurt Pvt. Ltd. and Didhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to make addition of Rs.2,05,000/- being the unaccounted income which was seized during search and seizure operation. The AO also made addition of Rs.6,91,200/- on account of 20 carat gold bars/coins weighing about 256.000 grams seized during the search operation and thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.
3. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto.
At the very outset, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that during assessment proceedings as well as the first appellate proceedings copy of panchnama, statement recorded on oath under section 132(4) of the Act and copies of invoices available at page 1 to 23 of the paper book could not be produced before the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities under bonafide belief that these documents have already been taken on record by the search team which are necessary to decide the issue in controversy and sought to admit the same in additional evidence. The assessee also sought to bring on record financial of F.Y. 2014-15 in additional evidence which were rejected on the ground that the assessee had not obtained the signature of Falguni Dosi on the same.
When we examine the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of these documents which explain the cash seized during the search operation and the translated copy of invoice from Gujarati to English regarding gold bars/jewellery seized during the search operation which were not examined by the Ld. Lower Authorities as the assessee has not produced English translation of its retail invoice in Gujarati language. We are of the considered view that the additional evidence sought to be brought on record by the assessee running from page 1 to 94 of the paper book and translated version of retail invoice for purchasing gold bar, jewellery etc. from Gujrati language are very crucial to decide the issue in controversy.
Ld. D.R. for the Revenue also stated that, in any case, all these documents are required to be examined by the AO having not been produced before him during the assessment proceedings. So in the interest of justice and to decide the issue once for all and to stop the multiplicity of the proceedings the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and case is remitted back to the AO to decide afresh by entertaining the additional evidence brought on record by the assessee after providing opportunity of being heard.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.03.2024.