GRAND BAZAAR DEVELOPERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In this case, a search action was conducted on 10.10.2018 and subsequent dates. Thereafter, another search action was conducted on M/s. Everest Ply and Vineer Pvt. Ltd. on 30.11.2018. Shri Ashish Garg one of the designated partners of M/s. Grand Bazaar Developers LLP was also covered. It was during this search that certain loose sheets were seized, which have been used to make the impugned additions. 1.1. To recapitulate the facts briefly, it is seen that the loose sheets (presented in the paper book at pages 117 and 118 by the ld. A/R) allegedly I.T.A. No.: 1266/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Grand Bazaar Developers LLP. depicted two applications for booking of a flat by two persons (Mr. Murali Mohan Rao and Mrs. Jinugu Anuradha). In one of these sheets, it was written “cash agreement” and it was mentioned that basic price was Rs. 50,00,000/- against which Rs. 11,00,000/- was paid. These payments were not reflected in the ledger of the assessee. However, an important fact that emerges out of these documents is that both papers are dated 05.01.2018 (recorded in para 5.2.1 of impugned order and visible on pages 117 -118 of the paper book). On the basis of narration in these sheets of paper, the ld. AO added Rs. 50 Lakh u/s 69A of the Act.

After having failed at the level of both ld. AO/ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before the ITAT through the following grounds of appeal: “1) For that the Order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Kolkata-27 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act dated 06/05/2024 is bad in law as well as on facts and hence the same be quashed and/or set aside. 2) For that the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Kolkata-27 is without according proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant, therefore the same was passed in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and hence the said order be quashed and/or set aside. 3) That the Ld. CIT(A) Kol-27 has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer adding Rs.50,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not considering the submission of assessee that the addition u/s. 69A is not applicable in this case and consequently the charging of income u/s. 115BBE and Surcharge @ 25% of tax on demand is bad in law. 4) The Ld. CIT(A)-Kol27 has erred in not considering the fact that the alleged Page No. 179 & 180 of agreement bear the signature dated 05/01/2018 and if at all assessable then alleged income cannot be assessed in Assessment Year 2019-20. 5) The Ld. CIT (A) Kol-27 erred in confirming the addition made by L’d AO amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that purported cash receipt was never received by the appellant and the Ld. A.O. also did not make any enquiry regarding alleged payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- by flat buyer to the assessee.” 2.1. Right at the outset, the ld. A/R pointed out that the ground no. 4 needed to be adjudicated first as it would be crucial for determining the assessibility of the impugned amount. The ld. A/R pointed out that since the document was dated 05.01.2018 then at best assessment on it could have been done in Page 2 of 3. I.T.A. No.: 1266/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Grand Bazaar Developers LLP. AY 2018-19 only and not AY 2019-20 (the present year). 2.2. The ld. D/R fairly admitted that with 05.01.2018 as the date on the documents it was only possible to consider it for AY 2018-19. He however, requested to give directions for the same to be assessed in the appropriate year, being AY 2018-19.