M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

आदेश/Order

PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT

This is assessee's appeal against the order dated 15.12.2022 of the ld.CIT (A)-3, Gurgaon pertaining to 2015- 16 assessment year.

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 2

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 3

3.1 The assessee has also raised the following additional

grounds :

3.2 The additional Grounds 1 & 2 are legal grounds and

therefore admitted, not requiring any fresh materials to be

gone into.

3.3 At the outset, the Id. Counsel for the Assessee has

stated at the bar that he does not wish to press the

additional grounds. Rejected as not pressed.

adjudication.

conducted on the Assessee company, nor any ‘Panchnama’

was prepared in its name, the provisions of section 153A of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') are not

applicable and so, the assessment completed u/s 153A of the

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 4

Act is against the provisions of law. This Ground

corresponds to Ground No. (b) raised by the Assessee before

the ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer passed the assessment

order dated 30.12.2019 u/s 153A(1)(b) read with

section143(3) of the I.T.Act, making various additions. Before

the ld. CIT(A), the Assessee raised this issue by way of

Ground No. (b).

observed, inter alia, that a letter dated 7.9.2022 had been

sent to the A.O., requiring him to furnish details of the

warrant executed / ‘Panchnama’ prepared,’ on the basis of

which, proceedings u/s 153A of the Act were initiated; that

in response, the A.O. had furnished the copy of the warrant

which was duly executed in the name of the Assessee

on6.2.2018, in respect of the premises situated at SCO 80-

81, 4th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh; that the said warrant

was found containing the name of the Assessee; that

accordingly, it was found that the warrant of authentication

u/s 132(1) of the Act had been executed in the name of the

Assessee; and that, therefore, the A.O. was justified in

initiating assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act.

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 5

contended that neither any search was conducted on the

Assessee company, nor any ‘Panchnama’ was prepared in its

name; that the Assessee company filed an application under

the RTI Act, bearing Registration No. CCITC/R/E/20/0001

dated 7.1.2020, seeking information with regard to copy of

last warrant, a copy whereof has been placed at Assessee’s

Paper Book (‘ABP’),pages 346-350. It has been contended

that the said application of the Assessee was transferred

(APB 351-352) to the DGIT, ITO office of PCIT (Investigation),

Ludhiana and the DCIT, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh (APB

354-356) and finally to the DCIT, Central Circle-2, Mohali

(APB 357); that none of the Income Tax Authorities provided

the Assessee company with the copy of the said warrant; that

the ACIT, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh vide order (APB 360-

361), dated 5.2.2.020, passed u/s 7(5) of the RTI Act, denied

the Assessee company with a copy of the search warrant.

the Act was completed against the provisions of the law, as

neither any search u/s 132 was conducted on the Assessee

company, nor any ‘Panchnama’ was prepared in its name;

that though the Assessee specifically requested the

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 6

Assessing Officer to provide it with a copy of the search

warrant in the name of the Assessee company, no such

search warrant was provided to the Assessee company; that

neither the name of the company was mentioned in the

‘Panchnama’; nor a copy of the search warrant was provided

to the Assessee company, despite repeated requests. It has

been contended that the search was conducted at the

residential premises of the Assessee company, namely Shri

Tarloki Nath Singla and Shri Jagdish Rail Gupta in their

individual capacity; that simultaneously, search was also

conducted in the business premises at M/s Kansal Singla

and Associates, Chandigarh, at SCO 80-81, 4th Floor, Sector

17-C, Chandigarh, which is also the registered address of the

Assessee company; that during the search of M/s Kansal

Singla and Associates, regular books of account along

withbank details of the company were found; that one of the

directors of the company, Shri T.N.Singla, who is also a

partner in M/s Kansal Singla and Associates, was present at

the time of search, but his signatures were not taken on the

‘Panchnama’ prepared in the name of M/s Kansal Singla and

Associates; that on the request of the Assessee company, the

ld. CIT(A), vide letter dated 7.9.2022, directed the A.O. to

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 7

furnish a copy of the search warrant / ‘Panchnama’

prepared, on the basis of which, the assessment u/s 153A

had been completed in the case of the Assessee company;

that the ld CIT(A), in the impugned order, has similarly

mentioned that the “Assessing Officer furnished the copy of

the warrant which was duly executed in the name of the

appellant on 16.2.2018 in respect of the premises situated at

SCO 80-81, 4th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The said

warrant was found containing the name of the appellant”;

that the ld. CIT(A), by simply observing so, agreed with the

action of the Assessing Officer and held that the Assessing

Officer was justified in initiating assessment proceedings u/s

153A of the Act; that the ld. CIT(A) did not provide the

Assessee with the copy of the warrant, nor reproduced the

same in the order; that since none of the Income Tax

Authorities provided the Assessee with the copy of the search

warrant, the Assessee company was suspicious that its name

was not mentioned in the search warrant.

original search warrant from the Department, which was

produced. The name of the Assessee company was found

mentioned in the search warrant. It is seen that a copy of

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 8

the ‘Panchnama’ has been placed at APB 519-522. At APB

519, at item A, it is mentioned: ‘Warrant in the case: M/s

Kansal Singla and associates’; at item (B), it has been stated

that: ‘Warrant to search (Details and Ownership of place of

search): M/s Kansal Singla and Associates SCO 80-81, 4th

Floor, Sector 21C, Chandigarh. So, the name of the Assessee

Company, is not mentioned in this ‘Panchnama’. Also, this

‘Panchnama’ does not bear the signature of Shri T.N.

Singla,Director of the Assessee Company, who is stated to

have been present at the place of search at the time of the

search.

Department, as contained in the oral arguments addressed

by the ld. CIT (DR) and the written submissions dated

5.6.2023 are that providing of the copy of the warrant is not

a right of the searched persons; that u/s 96 of the CrPC read

with section 76 of the Evidence Act, a certified copy of a

search warrant could be obtained on payment of legal fee.

Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble

Delhi High Court in the case of ‘MDLR’, 361 ITR 405

(Delhi), wherein, it has been held in para 24, that it will be

salutary and proper that a copy of the search warrant be

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 9

furnished to the occupant or the person searched; and that

this would curtail any allegation of interpolation, addition of

names, etc. On the issue as to whether it is necessary to

have the names of the person searched in the ‘Panchnama’,

the ld. DR has sought to place reliance on ‘MDLR’ (supra),

wherein, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that since

the 22 parties whose names were not mentioned, did not

object to the order u/s 153A in the petition u/s 264

pursuant to the assessment order, such objection was not

justified in the writ petition filed; that the assessment order

under section 153A cannot and should not be permitted to

become a matter of writ petition as the First Appellate

Forum; and that the First Appellate Statutory Authority

could deal statutorily with the questions and issues raised in

the writ petition the jurisdiction of the First Appellate

Authority having not been invoked with the appeals preferred

by the writ petitioners.

main person on the search warrant, the ld. CIT (DR) has

contended that there is no re-equipment of service of warrant

on the main person, who is usually occupied at other

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 10

premises, that the search warrant is required to be served on

the witnesses.

been mentioned in the search warrant, which was produced

in the original by the Department before us. Therefore, this

puts this entire controversy at rest and the Assessee’s

objection in this regard is found to be unjustified and it is,

accordingly, rejected, while rejecting Ground No.2.

to these grounds stand effectively decided by us in the

preceding paragraphs, where we have found that the Search

Warrant did contain the name of the assessee company,

therefore, the grievance of the assessee by way of Ground

Nos. 3 and 4 does not contain any merit and, accordingly,

Ground Nos. 3 and 4 are rejected.

based on any incriminating material found during the

search. In this regard, the Id. CIT(A) has held that the

Assessing Officer was having jurisdiction to assess the

income of the Assessee on the basis of the material available

at the time of the assessment and he was not to restrict the

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 11

additions subject to the incriminating material found during

the search. For holding so, the Id. CIT(A) has placed reliance

on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case

of "CIT vs. KPUmmer", (citation not given); the decision of

the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of 'Rajkumar

Arora', 367 ITR 517 (Allahabad); the decision of the Hon'ble

Kerala High Court in the case of 'EN Gopakumar vs. CIT',

(2016) 75 taxman.com 215 and the decision of the Hon'ble

Allahabad High Court in the case of 'CIT vs.Kesarvani Zarda

Bhandar', ITA No.270/2014. The Id. Counsel for the

Assessee, on this issue, has contended that the A.O. issued

notice u/s 153A of the Act on 09.03.2019, against which, the

company filed return and challenged the initiation of

proceedings u/s 153A vide letter dated 03.05.2019 (APB-1);

and that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are not

emanating from the search proceedings, as no incriminating

material or evidence was found during the course of the

alleged search related to the Assessee company for the year

under consideration. Reliance in this regard is placed on the

order of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein, the SLP filed by the

Department in the cases of 'Meeta Gutgutia, 96 taxmann.com

468/257 Taxman 441 (SC) and 'Kabul Chawla' were

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 12

dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The relevant portion is

re-produced below

"Recently, Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in ‘Alankar Saphire Developers v. Dy. CIT’, [2020] 116 taxmann.com 389/184 ITD 847 (Delhi -Trib.) decided the issue that if no incriminating material is found in the search, no addition can be made u/s 153A. During the course of hearing in this case the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ‘CIT v. Kabul Chawla', [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412/234 Taxman 300/[2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) and ‘Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia’, [2017] 82 taxmann.com 287/248 Taxman 384/395 ITR 526(Delhi). On the basis of arguments of the parties the Tribunal noted that SLP filed by the Department in the case of ‘Kabul Chawla' (Supra) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court for low tax effect and SLP filed before the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Meeta Gutgutia’, (supra) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Pr. CIT v.Meeta Gutgutia’,[2018] 96 taxmann.com 468/257 Taxman 441 (SC) by observing that ‘We do not find any merit in this petition’ . The Department submitted that SLP on the similar issue has been admitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ‘M/s Apar industries’ (Citation not provided). The Tribunal however held that once the SLP is not admitted, the

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 13

decisions given by the High Court in the case of ‘Kabul Chawla’ and ‘Meeta Gutgutia’ became final and binding."

14.1 The Id. Counsel for the Assessee has contended that

therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot

be sustained in the present case in the order passed under

section 153A of the Act, in the absence of any incriminating

material found during the course of search action, where

there was no pending assessment which could be said to

have abated on the date of search.

14.2 Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'PCIT vs M/s Abhisar

Buildwell P. Ltd.', CA No. 6580, dated 24.04.2023, wherein,

the Hon'ble court held that "in case no incriminating

material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot

assess or reassess taking into consideration the other

material in respect of completed assessments/unabated

assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of

completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made

by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found

during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition

under Section 132A of the Act, 1961.”

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 14

14.3 Reliance has further been placed on the judgement of

the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in 'Pr. CIT Vs. Sandeep

Agarwal (HUF)', dated 09/10/2023, wherein, it was held that

- "We dismiss the appeal, holding that the only issue which

arises for determination will have to be answered against the

Revenue and favouring the Assessee given the decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.',

(supra) and 'U.K. Paints (Overseas)', (supra). The

clarification issued in both these judgments is, however,

issued in these matters as well in the context of

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the

IT Act. However, as noted above, all contentions of all parties

are kept open in this context.

14.4 It has been contended that the Assessing Officer has

wrongly made addition u/s 153A(l)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act

on the direction of the third party without having any

incriminating material on record, as no incriminating

material/document was unearthed by the Department during

the search proceeding. Hence, assessment u/s 153A(l)(b)

r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been wrongly

made, against the provisions of the law.

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 15

14.5 The ld. DR has not been able to rebut the above

position.

14.6 The ground-wise submissions and material of both

the parties qua all the additions made have been considered

in extensor while dealing with Ground Nos. 6 to 11, infra. At

the same time, in view of the above-referred legal position, as

settled by ‘Abhisar Buildwell’ (supra), Ground No. 5 is

accepted.

from M/s Abel Cold Store AO Observation - Page 10-11 of AO

Order.

15.1 AO made addition of all the credit entries in bank of

appellant company amounting to Rs. 2,09,43,578/- without

considering each credit separately on merit, on the plea that

purpose and utilization of funds not explained by assessee.

15.2 Documents submitted before AO vide reply dated

21.03.2020 (Paper book page 78-80)- 1. Copy of account of Abel Cold Storage (Ajit India) in the books of M/s TJR Properties Private Limited for A.Y.2015-16 (Paperbook page 78) 2. Bank Account statements of M/s TJR Properties Private Limited for A.Y.2015-16 showing amount received and paid to Abel Cold Storage (Paperbook page 79-80)

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 16

15.3 The AO in the assessment order has wrongly made

addition of Rs. 2,09,43,578/- including Rs. 20,00,000/-

received back from M/s Abel Cold Storage on the plea that

the assessee could not explain the purpose and sources of

funds without mentioning the documents submitted by the

assessee during the assessment proceedings in the

assessment order.

CIT (A) Observation - Page 97, Point 1 of CIT(A)’s Order

15.4 CIT(A) made addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- received from

M/s Abel Cold Storage alleging that - "In the absence of any

documentary evidence the same remains unexplained"

Documents submitted before CIT(A) vide reply dated

21.03.2020 (page 72 and 80 of CIT(A)’s order)

Documents submitted before ITAT which were also submitted

before CIT(A) vide reply dated 21.12.2019 (Paper book page

77-80) - 1. Confirmation of Abel Cold Storage (Paperbook page 77) 2. Copy of account of Abel Cold Storage (Ajit India) in the books of M/s TJR Properties Private Limited for A.Y.2015-16 (Paperbook page 78) 3. Bank Account statements of M/s TJR Properties Private Limited for A.Y.2015-16 showing amount received and paid to Abel Cold Storage (Paperbook page 79-80)

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 17

15.5 The assessee company contends that the company

advanced Rs. 20,00,000/-to M/s Abel Cold Storage on

24.07.2013 and the same were returned back to the

company on 21.04.2014 through banking channels and as it

was not a case of cash credit, which was part of the books of

accounts submitted by the company during the assessment

proceedings and remand proceedings. The company has filed

written submission before CIT(A) in 2020 and, the CIT(A)

had more than 2 years to examine the documents submitted

by the assessee company and ask for any other document, if

required. But neither the CIT(A) nor AO asked the appellant

to submit any other documentary evidence with regard to

the amount received back from M/s Abel Cold Storage.

15.6 The CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the addition made by

the AO on the plea that the company did not submit any

documentary evidence. The CIT(A) ought to have raised any

query or issued any notice asking the assessee to submit the

same. But no such query was raised nor any notice was

issued to the assessee in this regard. Additionally, the CIT(A)

confirmed the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made by the AO

for an absurd reason, without giving any findings on the

copy of account and bank statement already submitted by

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 18

the assessee company during the assessment proceeding and

remand proceeding. The CIT(A) has reproduced the entire

written submission of the assessee company in its order, on

page 72 of the CIT(A) order, the assessee had mentioned in

the point 1 of the table that the company advanced Rs.

20,00,000/- to M/s Abel Cold Storage on 24.07.2013 and

received back on 21.04.2014 and has submitted copy of

ledger account as documentary evidence for the same.

However, the CIT(A) did not discuss the same while wrongly

confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/-.

15.7 Further, if the AO found the documentary evidence

furnished by the assessee company to be unsatisfactory or

the assessee company failed to submit any documentary

evidence before CIT(A), then, they could have initiated

proceedings under Sections 133(6) or 131 of the Act for

further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither

the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender

/ creditor for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs.

20,00,000/- was made based on the directive of a third

party.

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 19

15.8 Neither enquiry was made by CIT()A or AO before

confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- nor any

documentary evidence were sought from the assessee

company, therefore the assessee company has now submitted

Confirmation of Abel Cold Storage (Paperbook page 77) as

additional evidence, Copy of account of Abel Cold Storage

(Ajit India) in the books of M/s TJR Properties Private

Limited for A.Y.2015-16 (Paperbook page 78) and Bank

Account statements of M/s TJR Properties Private Limited for

A.Y.2015-16 showing amount received and paid to Abel Cold

Storage (Paperbook page 79-80) was already submitted with

the AO & CIT(A). The submission of said documents as

additional evidence is neither challenged nor disputed in the

appeal by the department.

from Sh. Keshav Garg. AO’s Observation - Pages 10-11 of

AO’s order.

16.1 AO made addition of all the credit entries in bank of

the appellant amounting to Rs. 2,09,43,578/- without

considering each credit separately on merit, on the plea that

purpose and utilization of funds not explained by assessee.

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 20

Documents submitted before AO vide reply dated 21.03.2020

(Paper book page 46-59)- 1. Income Tax Return of Sh. Keshav Kumar (Paperbook page 46) 2. Computation of Keshav Kumar for A.Y. 2015-16 (Paperbook page47-48) 3. Affidavit of Sh. Keshav Garg (Paperbook page 49-51) 4. Copy of account of Keshav Garg in the books of M/s TJR Properties Private Limited for A.Y.2015-16 (Paperbook page 52) 5. Copy of account of Garg Enterprises in the books of M/s TJR Properties Private Limited for A.Y. -2015-16 (Paperbook page 53) 6. Bank Account statements of M/s Garg Enterprises for A.Y. 2015-16 (Paperbook page 54) 7. Bank Account statements of Keshav Kumar for A.Y. 2015-16 (Paperbook page 55-59)

16.2 The AO in the assessment order has wrongly made

addition of Rs. 2,09,43,578/- including Rs. 79,50,000/-

received from Sh. Keshav Kumar on the plea that the assessee could not explain the purpose and sources of funds

without mentioning deficiency on the part of assessee to prove the utilization of funds and also without mentioning the documents submitted by the assessee during the

assessment proceedings in the assessment order.

16.3 CIT(A)’s Observation - Page 9-100, Point 5 of CIT Order

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 21

16.4 CIT(A) made addition of Rs. 79,50,000/- received from

Keshav Garg alleging that - "Merely submission of bank

account will not amount to explaining creditworthiness of

Sh. Keshav Garg particularly keeping in view the amount

(Rs. 79.50Lacs) and level of income he has shown in the ITR

(Rs. 6,28,550/-)"

Documents submitted before CIT(A) vide reply dated

21.03.2020 mentioned by CIT(A) (page 73, 76 and 78 of

CIT(A)’s order)

Documents submitted before ITAT which were also submitted

before CIT(A) vide reply dated 21.12.2019 (Paper book page

46-76) - 1. Income Tax Return of Sh. Keshav Kumar (Paperbook page 46) 2. Computation of Keshav Kumar for A.Y. 2015-16 (Paperbook page47-48) 3. Affidavit of Sh. Keshav Garg (Paperbook page 49-51) 4. Copy of account of Keshav Garg in the books of M/s TJR Properties Private Limited for A.Y.2015-16 (Paperbook page 52) 5. Copy of account of Garg Enterprises in the books of M/s TJR Properties Private Limited for A.Y. -2015-16 (Paperbook page 53) 6. Bank Account statements of M/s Garg Enterprises for A.Y. 2015-16 (Paperbook page 54) 7. Bank Account statements of Keshav Kumar for A.Y. 2015-16 (Paperbook page 55-59) 8. Proof of Sale and Purchase transactions of Keshav Kumar (Paperbook page 60-76) - Additional evidence

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 22

16.5 The assessee company contends that the company

received Rs. 34,50,000/-from Sh. Keshav Garg on

18.09.2014 (Paperbook page 58) and Rs. 45,00,000/- from

Garg Enterprises (proprietorship of Sh. Keshav Garg)on

11.09.2014 (Paperbook page 54). The company has filed

written submission before CIT(A) in 2020 and, the CIT(A) had

more than 2 years to examine the documents submitted by

the assessee company and to ask the assesse to submit any

other document, if required. But neither the CIT(A) nor AO

asked the appellant submit any other documentary evidence

in this regard.

16.6 The company submitted all the required proofs,

affidavit, copy of account, ITR, bank statement before the

CIT(A), to prove the creditworthiness of Sh. Keshav Garg

during the appellate proceedings, thereby shifting the onus

on the CIT(A). The CIT(A) without any verification wrongly

confirmed the addition made by the AO on the plea that

Merely submission of bank account will not amount to

explaining creditworthiness of Sh. Keshav Garg. If the CIT(A)

was not satisfied with the documentary proofs submitted by

the company and the CIT(A) ought to have raised any query

or issued any notice asking the assessee to submit the same.

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 23

But no such query was raised nor any notice was issued to

the assessee in this regard. Additionally, the CIT(A)

confirmed the addition of Rs. 79,50,000/- made by the AO

for an absurd reason without giving any findings on the

documentary evidences which were already submitted by the

assessee company during the assessment proceeding as well

as during the appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) has

reproduced the entire written submission of the assessee

company in its order, and on page 73, 76 and 78 of the

CIT(A) order, the following facts were mentioned by the

assessee in its submission which were reproduced by

CIT(A) :-

Page 73 of the CIT(A)’s order

DATE RECEIPT INWARD (CR) REMARKS PROOF OF IDENTITY, GENUINES AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTY AMOUNT PARTY NAME/ (IN RS) ACCOUNT NO.

11/09/2014 45,00,000/- GARG RS 45,00,000 RECEIVED FROM BANK ENTERPRISES GARG ENTERPRISES ON STATEMENT ITR (Proprietorship of 11/09/2014 OUT OF WHICH RS OF KESHAV Relative of Director) 20,00,000 RECEIVED AS GARG REPAYMENT OF ADVANCE CONFIRMATION GIVEN ON 23/04/2014 AND LEDGER BALANCE RS 25,00,000 ACCOUNT RECEIVED AS UNSECURED LOAN ON 11/09/2014. 18/09/2014 34,50,000/- KESHAV GARG UNSECURED LOAN OF RS BANK (RELATIVE OF 34,50,000 RECEIVED OUT OF STATEMENT ITR

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 24

DIRECTOR) WHICH RS 7,50,000 REPAID CONFIRMATION ON 01/11/2014 LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY OF AFFIDAVIT Page 76 of the CIT (A)’s order

DATE RECEIPT INWARD (CR) REMARKS PROOF OF IDENTITY, GENUINES AND CREDIT WORTHINES S OF THE PARTY AMOUNT PARTY NAME/ (IN RS) ACCOUNT NO.

11/09/2014 20,00,000/- GARG ENTERPRISES RS 45,00,000 RECEIVED BANK (Proprietorship of Relative FROM GARG STATEMENT of Director) ENTERPRISES ON ITR OF 11/09/2014 OUT OF WHICH KESHAV RS 20,00,000 RECEIVED AS GARG REPAYMENT OF CONFIRMATI ADVANCE GIVEN ON ON LEDGER 23/04/2014 AND BALANCE ACCOUNT RS 25,00,000 RECEIVED AS UNSECURED LOAN ON 11/09/2014. TOTAL Rs. 20,00,000/-

Page 78 of CIT(A) order DATE RECEIPT INWARD (CR) REMARKS PROOF OF IDENTITY, GENUINES AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTY AMOUNT PARTY NAME/ (IN RS) ACCOUNT NO.

18/09/2014 34,50,000/- KESHAV GARG UNSECURED LOAN OF RS BANK (RELATIVE OF 34,50,000 RECEIVED OUT OF STATEMENT DIRECTOR) WHICH RS'7,50,000 REPAID ITR ON 01/11/2014 CONFIRMATION LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OPENING CR BALANCE OF UNSECURED LOAN RS. 15,00,000. RS 11,50,000 TRANSFERRED TO SACHIT SINGLA ON 22/04/2014. RECEIVED AGAIN RS 34,50,000 ON 18/09/2014 OUT OF WHICH RS 11,00,000 WAS REPAID ON 01/11/2014 AND BALANCE RS 27,00,000 WAS REPAID ON 23/02/2018 TOTAL Rs. 34,50,000/-

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 25

16.7 The above documents were submitted before the

CIT(A) which were neither considered by the CIT(A) nor

discussed by the CIT(A) in its order. The CIT(A) wrongly

confirmed the addition made by AO without carrying out any

investigation or verification on the documents so submitted.

The CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 79,50,000/-

by taking a plea that bank statement was not a valid proof to

substantiate the creditworthiness of the credits in the bank

account.

16.8 The appellant company submitted copy of affidavit,

bank statement, ITR filed by the lender to AO / CIT(A). As

evident from Bank statement of Sh. Keshav Garg, amount Rs.

79,53,481/- is received by Keshav Garg from Trustline

Securities but no question / query in this regard was asked

by any of the Income Tax Authorities and simply added

credits in the bank account of the appellant company.

Further, it is submitted that Sh. Keshav Garg sold his

investment in shares of Rs. 79,53,481/- and the

corresponding LTCG of Rs. 11,93,777/- was shown by Sh.

Keshav Gag in his return for AY 2015-16, the copy of which

was submitted by the appellant company to substantiate the

creditworthiness of the lender, but the same was not

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 26

considered by any of the Income Tax Authorities before

confirming the said addition in the hands of the appellant

company.

16.9 The appellant has placed on record ITR along with

computation of income details at Page 46-48 of paperbook to

show sale of shares by him of listed company through

recognized stock exchange and capital gain amounting to Rs.

11,93,777/- and LTCG on said sale has been claimed as

exempt u/s 10(38) if the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Sh. Keshav

Garg, which has been accepted by the department. The said

sale of shares was made by Sh. Keshav Garg during the year

and sale consideration was also received during the year as

per below in his bank account no. with HDFC bank placed at

paperbook Page 57-59 :-

S no Particulars Sale Date Sale Purchase Purchase FMV Improve Index Exemp Exp Gain/ / ISIN Code Consider Date Cost (Asset) ment Cost tion Loss Cost 1 Stylum 12/09/2014 79,53,481 19/12/2011 51,82,000 67,59,704 0 0 11,93,777 Industries Limited (Shares) Total 79,53,481 51,82,000 0 67,59,704 0 0 11,93,777

16.10 The detail of proof of sale of listed share by the

lender are also placed on record at Page 60-75 of paperbook.

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 27

It is observed that Sh. Keshav Kumar has transferred Rs.

45,00,000 on 08.09.2014 to bank account of his

proprietorship concern M/s Garg Enterprises out of sale

proceeds of these shares and the said Rs. 45,00,000/- was

paid to the appellant company on 11.09.2014 (bank

statement of M/s Garg Enterprises is placed at Page 54 of

paperbook)

16.11 Another payment of Rs. 34,50,000/- was made by

Sh. Keshav Kumar to the appellant company on 18.09.2014

out of balance sale consideration of aforesaid equity shares

on 18.09.2014 as per bank statement of sh. Keshav Kumar

at Page 58 of paperbook.

16.12 Therefore, the sources of Rs. 79,50,000/- given by

Sh. Keshav Kumar through banking channel out of his own

bank account and bank account of his proprietorship

concern were given out of sale proceeds of listed shares of

M/s Stylum Industries Limited through recognized stock

exchange which were purchased by Sh. Keshav Kumar

during AY 2012-13.

16.13 Further, if the AO found the documentary evidence

furnished by the assessee company to be unsatisfactory and

the CIT(A) observed that the creditworthiness cannot be

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 28

established by submitting bank statement only, then they

could have initiated proceedings under Sections 133(6) or

131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is

noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any

such notice to the lender / creditor for additional inquiries.

Instead, an addition of Rs. 79,50,000/- was made based on

the directive of a third party.

16.14 Moreover, if only the assessee was not able to

establish the creditworthiness of Sh. Keshav Garg by

submitting the aforesaid documents due to which the CIT(A)

confirmed the addition of Rs. 79,50,000/-, then how come

the CIT(A) was satisfied with the creditworthiness of Sh.

Keshav Garg and M/s Garg Enterprises with the same set of

documents for AY 2013-14 (on Page 96 of CIT order for AY

2013-14) and AY 2014-15 (Page 105 of CIT order for AY

2014-15). The bank account from which the amount was

transferred by Sh. Keshav Garg and M/s Garg Enterprises to

the assessee company for AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 and AY

2015-16 are same and yet CIT(A) was satisfied with the

creditworthiness for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 and not for

AY 2015-16. This clearly shows that the decision of CIT(A)

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 29

was based on surmises and conjectures and against the

principal of natural justice.

16.15 Neither enquiry was made by CIT(A) or AO before

confirming the addition of Rs. 79,50,000/- nor any

documentary evidence were sought from the asseessee

company, therefore the assessee company has now

submitted Proof of Sale and Purchase transactions in equity

shares by Keshav Kumar (Paperbook page 60-76) as

additional evidence along with all the documents already

submitted before CIT(A) and AO. The submission of said

documents is neither challenged nor disputed in the appeal

by the department.

16.16 The Long Term Capital Gain on said sale of shares

were duly declared by the lender in his ITR and claimed it as

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the

claim of said exemption and sale of equity shares by the

lender was accepted by his assessing officer. Thus, the

source of Rs. 79,50,000/- given by the lender (Sh. Keshav

Kumar) is proved beyond doubt and no addition of Rs.

79,50,000/- received from Sh. Keshav Kumar should have

been made and needs to be deleted.

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 30

17.1 AO’s Observation - Page 10-11 of AO. 17.2 AO made addition of all the credit entries in bank

of Rs. 2,09,43,578/- (which includes cash deposit of Rs.

4,13,000/- by the company in its bank account) without

considering each credit separately on merit and on the plea

that purpose and utilization of funds not explained by

assessee.

CIT(A)’s Observation - Page 100, point 7 of CIT Order

17.3 The CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 4,13,000/- on

account of cash deposit made by the assessee company by

mentioning that - "The cash deposits were explained as

made on account of income generated during the year

under consideration which was duly reflected in P&L

account. However, no evidence/details giving the

particulars of person from whom such cash was received,

nature of transaction with them have been furnished.

Therefore, cash source deposits and of Rs. 4,13,000/-

remain unexplained."

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 31

17.4 The assessee contends that the company submitted

copy of income account along with copy of cash account,

bank account statement, profit and loss account and copy of

expense account in the books of the company for AY 2015-16

before the CIT(A), which were not considered by the CIT(A)

before confirming the addition. No other explanation or

documentary evidence, whatsoever was ever asked by CIT(A)

either by way of show cause notice or during the personal

hearing, before confirming the addition made by the AO.

order.

the addition made by AO, CIT(A) wrongly mentions that -no

evidence/details giving the particulars of person from whom

such cash was received, nature of transaction with them

have been furnished, without even going through the written

submission and documentary evidences submitted by the

assessee company during appellate proceedings. The

assessee company submitted the completed reply before the

CIT(A) in 2020, and it took the CIT(A) more than 2 years to

realize that the assessee failed to submit some of the

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 32

documentary evidences to substantiate its claim. Moreover,

even after that, the CIT(A) did not ask the assessee to submit

any documents but wrongly confirmed the addition made by

AO on the dictate of third party.

19.1 We find that the assessee company earned

commission income of Rs. 4,13,000/- during the year, which

fact was explained to the AO during the assessment

proceeding, which the AO completely ignored while making

the said addition. The copy of account of commission in the

books of the company (Paperbook page 328) was submitted

before the AO which was part of books of account submitted

by the company during assessment proceedings. The AO

neither discussed the same in the AO order nor considered

the copy of account of Commission which was already placed

on record while making the addition on the dictate of third

party.

19.2 Further, the Commission Account (Paperbook page 328) shows that the assessee company has earned commission income of Rs. 9,13,000/- and this has been duly shown as income by the assessee company in the Profit

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 33

and Loss account of the company as at 31.03.2015 (Paperbook Page 4 and 9).

19.3 The aforesaid documents, submitted by the assessee,

were neither challenged nor disputed by the department in

the appeal. Hence, as rightly contended, any receipt already

shown as income in the Profit and Loss Account cannot be

added u/s 68 of the Act, without any specific reasons or

evidence.

19.4 This Rs. 9,13,000/- includes commission of Rs.

5,00,000/- received from Motia Construction through

cheque of Rs. 4,50,000/- and RS. 50,000/- was deducted as

TDS by Motia Construction. However, this cheque was not

presented / encashed during this year. Thus, Id. CIT(A) has

made addition of Rs. 4,13,000/- only on account of

commission received and shown as income in the Profit and

Loss Account during the year.

19.5 Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,13,000/- upheld by

CIT(A) is already included in the commission income of Rs.

9,13,000/- declared in the Profit and Loss Account. Such

double addition cannot be sustained and it is deleted.

Ground No. 8 is accepted.

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 34

20.1 Out of total additions of Rs.2,09,43,578/- made by the

AO on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank, the

CIT(A) has confirmed additions to the extent of

Rs.1,03,63,000/-, to the extent of Rs.79.50 lacs, holding

that the immediate sources of these credits have not been

explained in the hands of Shri Keshav Garg, who advanced

the money, when he had shown income of only Rs.6,28,550/-

; and to the extent of Rs.20 lacs and Rs.4.13 lacs, holding

them to be unexplained in the absence of documentary

support.

20.2 The assessee contends that the company submitted

the cashflow statements, explanation of each debit and

credit entry in the bank account of the Appellant Company

along with the Balance Sheet, Affidavit, confirmations, bank

statements, ITRs, Balance sheets, copy of accounts etc. but

instead of considering each credit entry separately, the AO

with a vitiated mind and on the dictate of third party, made

additions of all the credit entries in the bank account of the

Appellant Company without considering the nature, source,

credibility and genuinity of each credit transaction received

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 35

in the bank account of the Appellant Company during the

year.

20.3 It is seen that the AO, after being fully satisfied with

the genuinity of company and sources of credit entries in

bank account, sent a detailed note on the comparison of

appellant Company with shell companies and explanation of

the credit entries as mentioned in points above, (deviation

note) to the Deputy Director of Investigation (ADIT), Mohali

on 26.12.2019 vide letter (deviation note) note no. 1733.

Dated 24.12.2019 at the fag end of assessment proceedings

being satisfied by the fact that the sources of the

transactions as per evidences / documents submitted and

regular books of accounts of the appellant company stood

explained by leading cogent and reliable evidence. However,

the ADIT(lnvestigation), Mohali was not authorized but she

acted without any jurisdiction and without application of

mind and rejected the deviation note in less than 12 hours.

It is pertinent to mention that the ADIT (Investigation),

Mohali rejected the deviation note sent with detailed replies

and evidences in less than 12 hours and observed that the

appellant company is a shell company. Thus, the

ADIT(lnvestigation), Mohali exceeded her jurisdiction

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 36

knowingly and issued dictates based on Appraisal Report.

The ADIT, Investigation, Mohali vide letter no. 1763 dated

27.12.2019 addressed to the Learned Assessing Officer

rejected the proposal/deviation note for not proposing the

additions despite the fact that ample evidence both reliable

and cogent had been produced by the appellant company

calling for no addition at all and still proceeded to dictate

the Assessing Officer to make additions by assigning flimsy

reasons as if the ADIT was an assessing authority; and still

further the ADIT by giving reference to the CBDT

instructions bearing No. FTS/194840/12 dated 20.11.2012

proved beyond a shadow of doubt that she had exceeded her

powers by rejecting the said deviation note.

20.4 The AO acted on the dictate of a third party and on

borrowed satisfaction to declare the appellant company as a

shell company and made addition of all credit entries in the

bank of the appellant company as undisclosed income u/s 68

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without even issuing any show

cause notice to the appellant company for treating it as a

shell company. Also, the Learned Assessing Officer neither

issued a show cause notice nor mentioned a single word

about shell company in any of the questionnaires sent by

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 37

him on 19.08.2019 (page 21-22 of paperbook), 07.10.2019

(page 25-28 of paperbook) and 05.12.2019 (page 36-38 of

paperbook).

20.5 The Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously made an

addition, disregarding the comprehensive evidence provided

by the assessee to substantiate its claim regarding the

lenders. It is crucial to note that the company extended

funds in submitted details as identity, sources, bank A/c,

etc of each creditor, and there is no entity, individual or

otherwise, that can be deemed as a sham entity.

Furthermore, all the lenders executed the transfers from

their active and operational bank accounts.

20.6 Further, the CIT(A) in his order has mentioned that- "It was further explained that the AO has used statement of Sh. Jagdish Rai Gupta selectively in parts by drawing wrong inference that M/S TJR was a shell company. It was submitted that M/s TJR Properties was having land which was purchased during F.Y. 2007-18 for Rs. 1,73,00,000/- and sold during A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.5,00,05,000/-by executing registered sale deed on 30.11.2011 and after paying stamp duty. Further, M/s TJR paid earnest money of Rs.1,50,00,000/- during F.Y. 2016-17 for purchase of a plot to build flat /apartment and paid TDS of Rs.1,50,000/- @1%. Thus, M/s TJR was having income generating apparatus and was undertaking business activities and was not a shell company.

9.3 Facts and material available on record have been considered in detail. Sh. TN Singla and Sh. Jagdish Rai Gupta are the directors/shareholders of the appellant company. Sh. Sahil Singla is the son, Smt. Kiran Singla is the wife and Smt. Sakshi Singla is Daughter in

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 38

Law of Sh. TN Singla .After taking into consideration the above facts, it is observed that the AO has held in his order the appellant company to be a shell company as merely existing on papers and not carrying out any business activities. After perusing the findings of the AO recorded in the assessment order and the material available on record, it is noted that M/s TJR Properties was having land which was purchased during F.Y. 2007-18 for Rs.1,73,00,000/- and sold during A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.5,00,05,000/-by executing registered sale deed on 30.11.2011 and paying stamp duty. The same AO has assessed Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of M/s TJR from the said transaction. It is not the case of the AO that the said land was a Benami asset held in the name of M/s TJR. Further, M/s TJR paid earnest money of Rs.1,50,00,000/- during FY. 2016-17 for purchase of a plot to build flat/apartment and paid TDS of Rs.1,50,000/- @1%. Thus, on facts, it is observed that M/s TJR was having income generating apparatus in past and future years and was undertaking business activities. There is no definition of shell company given under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 or Companies Act, 1956/2013. Every case needs to be examined on merits as per the peculiar facts and circumstances to draw such inference and consequences out of the same as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. In order to decide the merit of addition made by the AO on account of unexplained bank credits u/s 68 of the Act, it is required to examine the source and nature of credits received by the appellant terms of conditions laid down in the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Thus, it required to examine the identity and creditworthiness of the persons from who's amounts have been received and genuineness of the transactions on merit considering each credit separately. The AO has not discussed each and cred separately on merits in the assessment order before drawing the inference that the credits were unexplained. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed by AO after going through the reply of the appellant dated 19.12.2019 in respect of particular of such persons from whom such credits were received that the appellant had cred amounting to Rs 2,09,43,578/- in its bank account and the appellant could not explain purpose of such credits. Thus, the addition of Rs.2,09,43,578/- was made by the AO on the ground that the appellant has failed to explain the purpose and utilisation of such credits The appellant submitted during the appellate proceedings that it had received credits of Rs. 2,09,43,578/- in its bank account maintained with Bank of Maharashtra and furnished documentary evidence in support of identity and creditworthiness of such persons a genuineness of transaction which have been also furnished during the assessment proceedings. The AO was again directed during appellate proceedings vide letter no.295 dated 12.08.2021 to examine such credits on merit in respect of identity and

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 39

creditworthiness of such persons and genuineness of transaction. In the remand report dated 15.07.2022(supra), the AO did not bring on record any adverse findings in respect of identity and creditworthiness of such persons and genuineness of transactions except by stating that appellant is a shell company and doesn't have any profit generating apparatus. It was further stated that one of the group companies, i. e., M/s Evershine Recreation Pvt Ltd was a shell company from whom the appellant has received credits. However, the AO did not make any further enquiry in respect of credits in the bank account during the remand proceedings and relied upon the facts as discussed in the assessment order.

The appellant has discharged its onus as required u/s 68 of the Act. All the above mentioned documents were also furnished before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Although the AO has admitted to have received the said documents during the assessment proceedings yet the same were not taken into account by the AO while making addition. The AO has recorded in his order that the appellant could not explain the purpose and utilisation of such credits. However, the AO failed to take cognisance of the fact that addition u/s 68 of the Act is to be made if the appellant doesn't offer any explanation regarding the source and nature of credits received in the bank account or if the explanation offered is not found satisfactory by the AO. Whereas in this case the appellant has duly furnished its explanation in respect of bank credits received during the year under consideration alongwith necessary documentary evidence. If the AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the AO in respect of source and nature of credits received, he should have recorded such dissatisfaction in the assessment order. However, no 'adverse finding has been recorded in the assessment order in respect of the documentary evidence furnished by the appellant in support of bank credits. The submissions and documents furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings were also forwarded to the AO for remand report. In the remand report also, the AO has not even discussed the documentary evidence furnished by the appellant in support bank credits let alone pointing out any defect in the same. In view of the above discussion and after making independent perusal of documents furnished by the appellant, it is noted that the assessment order is non speaking, mechanical in nature and has been passed without discussing merits of the documents.

There is no direct or indirect evidence pointed out by the AO before making such additions. Therefore, after considering the merits of the case, analysis of credits as per the above table and strength of documentary evidence, it is observed that there is no justification in

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 40

such addition made in the hands of the appellant u/s 68 of the Act Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,05,80,578/- is hereby deleted."

20.7 The assessee rightly contends that the AO did not

make any adverse findings in the remand report and the

entire investigation / proceedings of the AO revolves around

stating the appellant company as shell company on the

dictate of third party. The AO made addition of all the credit

entries in the bank account of the company amounting to

Rs. 2,09,43,578/- ignoring all the proofs and documentary

evidences submitted by the assessee during the assessment

proceeding. However, same documents were submitted

before the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings and the

CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 1,05,80,578/- to the assessee

after verification of all the documents and confirmed

addition of Rs. 1,03,63,000/- without asking assesse for any

other evidence or document by CIT(A) during appellate

proceeding continued for three years as no show cause

notice was issued or query was raised by the CIT(A).

Accordingly, Ground No.9 is accepted and the addition of

Rs.1,03,63,000/- is deleted.

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 41

Rs. 9,66,547/- and disallowance of depreciation on vehicle to

the extent of Rs. 9,01,873/-

21.1 Ground No. 10 states that the CIT(A) has wrongly

upheld the disallowance of Rs9,66,547/-/- against loss

claimed in the return of income. Ground No. 11 states that

disallowance of depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs.

9,01,873/- has wrongly been upheld.

21.2 The AO disallowed the depreciation on vehicle to the

extent of Rs. 9,01,873/-without making any discussion in

the assessment order. The CIT(A) too did not make any

discussion in the impugned order while upholding the

disallowance.

21.3 The company submitted the following documents has

been placed before us, as also furnished before both income

tax authorities -

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 42

21.4 The contention of the assessee has all through

remained that the car was registered in the name of the

assessee company and was used for business purposes only.

The copy of the Registration Certificate has been fi led in

support.

21.5 The documents placed on file by the assessee have

not been disputed or challenged by the Department. The Id.

CIT(A), though, in para 11 of the impugned order, has

observed that the assessee did not furnish any documentary

evidence in support of the loss claimed.

21.6 It is seen that as per the Computation of Income

(paperbook page 4), loss was of Rs. 9,66,547/-, whereas as

per the Profit & Loss Account (paperbook page 4), the loss

was of Rs. 10,93,658/-.

21.7 The contention of the Id. Counsel for the assessee has

been that the AO wrongly observed that bills and vouchers

and books of account were not produced by the assessee and

that the AO wrongly disallowed the loss at Rs. 9,66,547/-as

per the Profit & Loss Account, without considering the loss

claimed in the return of income, at Rs. 10,93,658/-. It has

further been contended that the Id. CIT(A) went wrong in

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 43

observing that no documentary evidence was filed, whereas

the aforementioned papers were filed, as also ITR-V of the

assessee company, for assessment year 2015-16 (paperbook

page 10) and Balance Sheet of the assessee company as on

31.03.2015 (paperbook page 3-9) were also filed. This has

not been disputed before us.

21.8 In the search conducted, at the business premises of

M/s Kansal Singla & Associates, regular books of account

alongwith bank statements of the assessee company were

found, which fact stands duly mentioned at page 357 of the

Appraisal Report (paperbook page 144). Copies of all these

books of account were taken on CD by the Department, as

per Panchnama (paperbook page 299-302).

21.9 The books of account were examined by the AO before

sending the Deviation Note dated 24.12.2019 to Investigation

Wing. This is evident from the contents of the AO's letter

dated 24.12.2019 (paperbook page 320-322). The Dictate by

the ADIT (Investigation), on which, however, the AO acted is

available at paperbook page 323-325.

21.10 Further, the books of account were also submitted

by the assessee before the AO during the remand

ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 44

proceedings, on 16.02.2022, as available at paperbook page

81.

and 11 and these grounds are accepted. The additions of

Rs.9,66,547/- on account of loss and of Rs.9,01,873/- on

account of depreciation on vehicle are deleted.

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 16.02.2024.

Sd/- Sd/-

(VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( A.D. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar