ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in disallowing the commission expenditure claimed by the assessee. The assessee had provided complete details of the commission paid, including the names, addresses, PANs of the parties, and TDS deducted. Confirmations from third parties and their income tax returns were also submitted. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had held that the mere non-filing of a reply by summoned parties cannot be the basis for an adverse inference. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO was not justified in making additions on account of peak credit. The Tribunal observed that the owners of the concerns had admitted to doing business in their names, maintaining accounts, and filing income tax returns showing commission income. The department had accepted these returns for years, and no monetary benefit was found in the name of the appellant. Therefore, these were not benami concerns of the appellant. The Tribunal relied on various case laws from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court, stating that the appellant's case was covered and even on a stronger footing. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in disallowing the commission expenditure claimed by the assessee. The assessee had provided complete details of the commission paid, including the names, addresses, PANs of the parties, and TDS deducted. Confirmations from third parties and their income tax returns were also submitted. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had held that the mere non-filing of a reply by summoned parties cannot be the basis for an adverse inference. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO was not justified in making additions on account of peak credit. The Tribunal observed that the owners of the concerns had admitted to doing business in their names, maintaining accounts, and filing income tax returns showing commission income. The department had accepted these returns for years, and no monetary benefit was found in the name of the appellant. Therefore, these were not benami concerns of the appellant. The Tribunal relied on various case laws from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court, stating that the appellant's case was covered and even on a stronger footing. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in disallowing the commission expenditure claimed by the assessee. The assessee had provided complete details of the commission paid, including the names, addresses, PANs of the parties, and TDS deducted. Confirmations from third parties and their income tax returns were also submitted. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had held that the mere non-filing of a reply by summoned parties cannot be the basis for an adverse inference. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO was not justified in making additions on account of peak credit. The Tribunal observed that the owners of the concerns had admitted to doing business in their names, maintaining accounts, and filing income tax returns showing commission income. The department had accepted these returns for years, and no monetary benefit was found in the name of the appellant. Therefore, these were not benami concerns of the appellant. The Tribunal relied on various case laws from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court, stating that the appellant's case was covered and even on a stronger footing. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in disallowing the commission expenditure claimed by the assessee. The assessee had provided complete details of the commission paid, including the names, addresses, PANs of the parties, and TDS deducted. Confirmations from third parties and their income tax returns were also submitted. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had held that the mere non-filing of a reply by summoned parties cannot be the basis for an adverse inference. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO was not justified in making additions on account of peak credit. The Tribunal observed that the owners of the concerns had admitted to doing business in their names, maintaining accounts, and filing income tax returns showing commission income. The department had accepted these returns for years, and no monetary benefit was found in the name of the appellant. Therefore, these were not benami concerns of the appellant. The Tribunal relied on various case laws from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court, stating that the appellant's case was covered and even on a stronger footing. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO. Regarding additions made on account of share application money from entities not controlled by the alleged entry providers, the Tribunal found that no material, incriminating or otherwise, was found from the assessee's premises in connection with these credits. Therefore, no addition could be made. For credits from entities alleged to be controlled by entry providers, the Tribunal noted that the primary reliance was on an Excel sheet found from an independent search of Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah, which could not be used against the assessee in Section 153A proceedings without following the procedure under Section 153C. Furthermore, the impugned pages containing these transactions pertained to AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, not the AY 2010-11 under consideration. Similarly, additions based on documents found from Shri Ashit Vohra's residence were not sustainable in Section 153A proceedings for the assessee company, as the panchanama did not include the assessee's name, necessitating adherence to Section 153C. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO. Regarding additions made on account of share application money from entities not controlled by the alleged entry providers, the Tribunal found that no material, incriminating or otherwise, was found from the assessee's premises in connection with these credits. Therefore, no addition could be made. For credits from entities alleged to be controlled by entry providers, the Tribunal noted that the primary reliance was on an Excel sheet found from an independent search of Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah, which could not be used against the assessee in Section 153A proceedings without following the procedure under Section 153C. Furthermore, the impugned pages containing these transactions pertained to AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, not the AY 2010-11 under consideration. Similarly, additions based on documents found from Shri Ashit Vohra's residence were not sustainable in Section 153A proceedings for the assessee company, as the panchanama did not include the assessee's name, necessitating adherence to Section 153C. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO. Regarding additions made on account of share application money from entities not controlled by the alleged entry providers, the Tribunal found that no material, incriminating or otherwise, was found from the assessee's premises in connection with these credits. Therefore, no addition could be made. For credits from entities alleged to be controlled by entry providers, the Tribunal noted that the primary reliance was on an Excel sheet found from an independent search of Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah, which could not be used against the assessee in Section 153A proceedings without following the procedure under Section 153C. Furthermore, the impugned pages containing these transactions pertained to AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, not the AY 2010-11 under consideration. Similarly, additions based on documents found from Shri Ashit Vohra's residence were not sustainable in Section 153A proceedings for the assessee company, as the panchanama did not include the assessee's name, necessitating adherence to Section 153C. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO. Regarding additions made on account of share application money from entities not controlled by the alleged entry providers, the Tribunal found that no material, incriminating or otherwise, was found from the assessee's premises in connection with these credits. Therefore, no addition could be made. For credits from entities alleged to be controlled by entry providers, the Tribunal noted that the primary reliance was on an Excel sheet found from an independent search of Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah, which could not be used against the assessee in Section 153A proceedings without following the procedure under Section 153C. Furthermore, the impugned pages containing these transactions pertained to AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, not the AY 2010-11 under consideration. Similarly, additions based on documents found from Shri Ashit Vohra's residence were not sustainable in Section 153A proceedings for the assessee company, as the panchanama did not include the assessee's name, necessitating adherence to Section 153C. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed for AY 2011-12 on December 28, 2017, was invalid due to limitation of time. The Tribunal found that the prohibitory orders issued under section 132(3) were not justified as it was practicable to seize the documents. The judgment cited the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Sandhya P. Naik, emphasizing that prohibitory orders must be supported by reasons of impracticability. The Tribunal concluded that the conditions for imposing prohibitory orders under section 132(3) were not complied with, rendering those orders invalid. Consequently, the search was deemed concluded on March 10, 2015. Based on section 153B, the time limit for passing the assessment order expired on March 31, 2017. Therefore, the assessment order dated December 28, 2017, was quashed. As a result, the issues raised by the Revenue on merit and other technical grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous. The same reasoning was applied to the appeals for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed for AY 2011-12 on December 28, 2017, was invalid due to limitation of time. The Tribunal found that the prohibitory orders issued under section 132(3) were not justified as it was practicable to seize the documents. The judgment cited the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Sandhya P. Naik, emphasizing that prohibitory orders must be supported by reasons of impracticability. The Tribunal concluded that the conditions for imposing prohibitory orders under section 132(3) were not complied with, rendering those orders invalid. Consequently, the search was deemed concluded on March 10, 2015. Based on section 153B, the time limit for passing the assessment order expired on March 31, 2017. Therefore, the assessment order dated December 28, 2017, was quashed. As a result, the issues raised by the Revenue on merit and other technical grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous. The same reasoning was applied to the appeals for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed for AY 2011-12 on December 28, 2017, was invalid due to limitation of time. The Tribunal found that the prohibitory orders issued under section 132(3) were not justified as it was practicable to seize the documents. The judgment cited the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Sandhya P. Naik, emphasizing that prohibitory orders must be supported by reasons of impracticability. The Tribunal concluded that the conditions for imposing prohibitory orders under section 132(3) were not complied with, rendering those orders invalid. Consequently, the search was deemed concluded on March 10, 2015. Based on section 153B, the time limit for passing the assessment order expired on March 31, 2017. Therefore, the assessment order dated December 28, 2017, was quashed. As a result, the issues raised by the Revenue on merit and other technical grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous. The same reasoning was applied to the appeals for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO. Regarding additions made on account of share application money from entities not controlled by the alleged entry providers, the Tribunal found that no material, incriminating or otherwise, was found from the assessee's premises in connection with these credits. Therefore, no addition could be made. For credits from entities alleged to be controlled by entry providers, the Tribunal noted that the primary reliance was on an Excel sheet found from an independent search of Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah, which could not be used against the assessee in Section 153A proceedings without following the procedure under Section 153C. Furthermore, the impugned pages containing these transactions pertained to AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, not the AY 2010-11 under consideration. Similarly, additions based on documents found from Shri Ashit Vohra's residence were not sustainable in Section 153A proceedings for the assessee company, as the panchanama did not include the assessee's name, necessitating adherence to Section 153C. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO. Regarding additions made on account of share application money from entities not controlled by the alleged entry providers, the Tribunal found that no material, incriminating or otherwise, was found from the assessee's premises in connection with these credits. Therefore, no addition could be made. For credits from entities alleged to be controlled by entry providers, the Tribunal noted that the primary reliance was on an Excel sheet found from an independent search of Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah, which could not be used against the assessee in Section 153A proceedings without following the procedure under Section 153C. Furthermore, the impugned pages containing these transactions pertained to AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, not the AY 2010-11 under consideration. Similarly, additions based on documents found from Shri Ashit Vohra's residence were not sustainable in Section 153A proceedings for the assessee company, as the panchanama did not include the assessee's name, necessitating adherence to Section 153C. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO. Regarding additions made on account of share application money from entities not controlled by the alleged entry providers, the Tribunal found that no material, incriminating or otherwise, was found from the assessee's premises in connection with these credits. Therefore, no addition could be made. For credits from entities alleged to be controlled by entry providers, the Tribunal noted that the primary reliance was on an Excel sheet found from an independent search of Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah, which could not be used against the assessee in Section 153A proceedings without following the procedure under Section 153C. Furthermore, the impugned pages containing these transactions pertained to AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, not the AY 2010-11 under consideration. Similarly, additions based on documents found from Shri Ashit Vohra's residence were not sustainable in Section 153A proceedings for the assessee company, as the panchanama did not include the assessee's name, necessitating adherence to Section 153C. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO. Regarding additions made on account of share application money from entities not controlled by the alleged entry providers, the Tribunal found that no material, incriminating or otherwise, was found from the assessee's premises in connection with these credits. Therefore, no addition could be made. For credits from entities alleged to be controlled by entry providers, the Tribunal noted that the primary reliance was on an Excel sheet found from an independent search of Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah, which could not be used against the assessee in Section 153A proceedings without following the procedure under Section 153C. Furthermore, the impugned pages containing these transactions pertained to AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, not the AY 2010-11 under consideration. Similarly, additions based on documents found from Shri Ashit Vohra's residence were not sustainable in Section 153A proceedings for the assessee company, as the panchanama did not include the assessee's name, necessitating adherence to Section 153C. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal affirmed that for completed assessment years, which are unabated, any addition or disallowance under Section 153A can only be made on the basis of incriminating material collected during the search. In the absence of such material, the original assessment should be reiterated. The Tribunal noted that the addition was based on statements of directors of investing companies and findings from independent inquiries, not on incriminating documents found from the assessee's premises. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 15 crores was deleted as it was beyond the scope of Section 153A for an unabated assessment year. The Tribunal drew support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in IT(SS)A No. 17/Ahd/2020 for AY 2007-08. Regarding the addition of Rs. 6,18,921/- due to a negative cash balance, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide plausible explanations or supporting evidence, and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the explanation of borrowings from NIL was unsubstantiated and potentially violative of Section 269SS and 269TT. Similarly, for the disallowance of Rs. 5,26,434/- under Section 40A(3) for cash wages, the Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to substantiate its claim that no single labourer received more than Rs. 20,000/-, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 14, 15 & 16/Ahd/2020) concerning the deemed dividend issue. It agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for adjudication in accordance with law, given that the legal proposition was pending before a larger bench of the Apex Court, thus finding no grievance for the Revenue. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's remaining appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 18, 62 & 63/Ahd/2020) for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11, following the same reasoning as for AY 2007-08, emphasizing the assessee's consistent non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in IT(SS)A No. 17/Ahd/2020 for AY 2007-08. Regarding the addition of Rs. 6,18,921/- due to a negative cash balance, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide plausible explanations or supporting evidence, and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the explanation of borrowings from NIL was unsubstantiated and potentially violative of Section 269SS and 269TT. Similarly, for the disallowance of Rs. 5,26,434/- under Section 40A(3) for cash wages, the Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to substantiate its claim that no single labourer received more than Rs. 20,000/-, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 14, 15 & 16/Ahd/2020) concerning the deemed dividend issue. It agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for adjudication in accordance with law, given that the legal proposition was pending before a larger bench of the Apex Court, thus finding no grievance for the Revenue. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's remaining appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 18, 62 & 63/Ahd/2020) for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11, following the same reasoning as for AY 2007-08, emphasizing the assessee's consistent non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in IT(SS)A No. 17/Ahd/2020 for AY 2007-08. Regarding the addition of Rs. 6,18,921/- due to a negative cash balance, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide plausible explanations or supporting evidence, and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the explanation of borrowings from NIL was unsubstantiated and potentially violative of Section 269SS and 269TT. Similarly, for the disallowance of Rs. 5,26,434/- under Section 40A(3) for cash wages, the Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to substantiate its claim that no single labourer received more than Rs. 20,000/-, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 14, 15 & 16/Ahd/2020) concerning the deemed dividend issue. It agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for adjudication in accordance with law, given that the legal proposition was pending before a larger bench of the Apex Court, thus finding no grievance for the Revenue. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's remaining appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 18, 62 & 63/Ahd/2020) for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11, following the same reasoning as for AY 2007-08, emphasizing the assessee's consistent non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in IT(SS)A No. 17/Ahd/2020 for AY 2007-08. Regarding the addition of Rs. 6,18,921/- due to a negative cash balance, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide plausible explanations or supporting evidence, and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the explanation of borrowings from NIL was unsubstantiated and potentially violative of Section 269SS and 269TT. Similarly, for the disallowance of Rs. 5,26,434/- under Section 40A(3) for cash wages, the Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to substantiate its claim that no single labourer received more than Rs. 20,000/-, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 14, 15 & 16/Ahd/2020) concerning the deemed dividend issue. It agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for adjudication in accordance with law, given that the legal proposition was pending before a larger bench of the Apex Court, thus finding no grievance for the Revenue. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's remaining appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 18, 62 & 63/Ahd/2020) for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11, following the same reasoning as for AY 2007-08, emphasizing the assessee's consistent non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in IT(SS)A No. 17/Ahd/2020 for AY 2007-08. Regarding the addition of Rs. 6,18,921/- due to a negative cash balance, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide plausible explanations or supporting evidence, and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the explanation of borrowings from NIL was unsubstantiated and potentially violative of Section 269SS and 269TT. Similarly, for the disallowance of Rs. 5,26,434/- under Section 40A(3) for cash wages, the Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to substantiate its claim that no single labourer received more than Rs. 20,000/-, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 14, 15 & 16/Ahd/2020) concerning the deemed dividend issue. It agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for adjudication in accordance with law, given that the legal proposition was pending before a larger bench of the Apex Court, thus finding no grievance for the Revenue. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's remaining appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 18, 62 & 63/Ahd/2020) for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11, following the same reasoning as for AY 2007-08, emphasizing the assessee's consistent non-compliance.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the protective assessment under Section 68. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 68 is triggered when a sum is credited in an assessee's books and the assessee fails to explain its nature and source. However, the provision does not create ambiguity regarding who is liable to pay tax, and the concept of protective assessment is not applicable when the liability is clear. Furthermore, for AY 2012-13, the substantive addition in the hands of the investing company was deleted as the investor surrendered income under the VSV Scheme. Therefore, taxing the same amount again in the hands of the receiving party was not justified. Regarding the claim of exempted long-term capital gain, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's decision on this issue, but the grounds of appeal suggest it was a point of contention. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the protective assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the protective assessment under Section 68. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 68 is triggered when a sum is credited in an assessee's books and the assessee fails to explain its nature and source. However, the provision does not create ambiguity regarding who is liable to pay tax, and the concept of protective assessment is not applicable when the liability is clear. Furthermore, for AY 2012-13, the substantive addition in the hands of the investing company was deleted as the investor surrendered income under the VSV Scheme. Therefore, taxing the same amount again in the hands of the receiving party was not justified. Regarding the claim of exempted long-term capital gain, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's decision on this issue, but the grounds of appeal suggest it was a point of contention. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the protective assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the protective assessment under Section 68. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 68 is triggered when a sum is credited in an assessee's books and the assessee fails to explain its nature and source. However, the provision does not create ambiguity regarding who is liable to pay tax, and the concept of protective assessment is not applicable when the liability is clear. Furthermore, for AY 2012-13, the substantive addition in the hands of the investing company was deleted as the investor surrendered income under the VSV Scheme. Therefore, taxing the same amount again in the hands of the receiving party was not justified. Regarding the claim of exempted long-term capital gain, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's decision on this issue, but the grounds of appeal suggest it was a point of contention. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the protective assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in IT(SS)A No. 17/Ahd/2020 for AY 2007-08. Regarding the addition of Rs. 6,18,921/- due to a negative cash balance, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide plausible explanations or supporting evidence, and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the explanation of borrowings from NIL was unsubstantiated and potentially violative of Section 269SS and 269TT. Similarly, for the disallowance of Rs. 5,26,434/- under Section 40A(3) for cash wages, the Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to substantiate its claim that no single labourer received more than Rs. 20,000/-, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 14, 15 & 16/Ahd/2020) concerning the deemed dividend issue. It agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for adjudication in accordance with law, given that the legal proposition was pending before a larger bench of the Apex Court, thus finding no grievance for the Revenue. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's remaining appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 18, 62 & 63/Ahd/2020) for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11, following the same reasoning as for AY 2007-08, emphasizing the assessee's consistent non-compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in IT(SS)A No. 17/Ahd/2020 for AY 2007-08. Regarding the addition of Rs. 6,18,921/- due to a negative cash balance, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide plausible explanations or supporting evidence, and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the explanation of borrowings from NIL was unsubstantiated and potentially violative of Section 269SS and 269TT. Similarly, for the disallowance of Rs. 5,26,434/- under Section 40A(3) for cash wages, the Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to substantiate its claim that no single labourer received more than Rs. 20,000/-, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 14, 15 & 16/Ahd/2020) concerning the deemed dividend issue. It agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for adjudication in accordance with law, given that the legal proposition was pending before a larger bench of the Apex Court, thus finding no grievance for the Revenue. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's remaining appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 18, 62 & 63/Ahd/2020) for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11, following the same reasoning as for AY 2007-08, emphasizing the assessee's consistent non-compliance.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the protective assessment under Section 68. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 68 is triggered when a sum is credited in an assessee's books and the assessee fails to explain its nature and source. However, the provision does not create ambiguity regarding who is liable to pay tax, and the concept of protective assessment is not applicable when the liability is clear. Furthermore, for AY 2012-13, the substantive addition in the hands of the investing company was deleted as the investor surrendered income under the VSV Scheme. Therefore, taxing the same amount again in the hands of the receiving party was not justified. Regarding the claim of exempted long-term capital gain, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's decision on this issue, but the grounds of appeal suggest it was a point of contention. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the protective assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the protective assessment under Section 68. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 68 is triggered when a sum is credited in an assessee's books and the assessee fails to explain its nature and source. However, the provision does not create ambiguity regarding who is liable to pay tax, and the concept of protective assessment is not applicable when the liability is clear. Furthermore, for AY 2012-13, the substantive addition in the hands of the investing company was deleted as the investor surrendered income under the VSV Scheme. Therefore, taxing the same amount again in the hands of the receiving party was not justified. Regarding the claim of exempted long-term capital gain, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's decision on this issue, but the grounds of appeal suggest it was a point of contention. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the protective assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the protective assessment under Section 68. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 68 is triggered when a sum is credited in an assessee's books and the assessee fails to explain its nature and source. However, the provision does not create ambiguity regarding who is liable to pay tax, and the concept of protective assessment is not applicable when the liability is clear. Furthermore, for AY 2012-13, the substantive addition in the hands of the investing company was deleted as the investor surrendered income under the VSV Scheme. Therefore, taxing the same amount again in the hands of the receiving party was not justified. Regarding the claim of exempted long-term capital gain, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's decision on this issue, but the grounds of appeal suggest it was a point of contention. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the protective assessment.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matters for all three assessment years should be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of providing substantial additional evidence and detailed explanations for the investment in Poineer Residency-II and the income from house property. The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without fully appreciating these evidences. Similarly, for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the assessee claimed to have explained the investments in the UPAVP housing project before the CIT(A), but the evidence was allegedly ignored. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that the CIT(A) had passed orders disregarding substantial evidence. Consequently, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with a due opportunity to present her case on merits and produce all supporting documents. The procedural grounds regarding Section 144 and Section 127 were implicitly addressed by the decision to set aside the matter for fresh consideration, implying that these issues would be re-examined.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matters for all three assessment years should be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of providing substantial additional evidence and detailed explanations for the investment in Poineer Residency-II and the income from house property. The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without fully appreciating these evidences. Similarly, for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the assessee claimed to have explained the investments in the UPAVP housing project before the CIT(A), but the evidence was allegedly ignored. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that the CIT(A) had passed orders disregarding substantial evidence. Consequently, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with a due opportunity to present her case on merits and produce all supporting documents. The procedural grounds regarding Section 144 and Section 127 were implicitly addressed by the decision to set aside the matter for fresh consideration, implying that these issues would be re-examined.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,37,500/-. The AO wrongly treated the offered commission income as 'money' under section 69A and incorrectly denied set-off of losses. The Tribunal noted that section 115BE is effective from 01.04.2017 and not applicable retrospectively to AY 2010-11. The Revenue could not produce any contra view. Consequently, the Revenue's ground on this issue was dismissed. Regarding the protective addition of Rs. 3,38,00,000/-, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion. It was acknowledged that the assessee was a facilitator earning only commission income and not the owner of the transactions. The assessee also confirmed not being involved in cash receipt/payment. Therefore, making additions of the total transaction amount on a protective basis was deemed unjustifiable. The Revenue's ground was dismissed. On the issue of unaccounted commission receipts, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that after analyzing seized material and removing duplication, the commission income was determined at Rs. 17,63,203/-. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to consider the additional commission income offered by the assessee and allow set-off of losses. The Revenue could not show any contrary view, and thus, this ground was also dismissed. The remaining general grounds were also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,37,500/-. The AO wrongly treated the offered commission income as 'money' under section 69A and incorrectly denied set-off of losses. The Tribunal noted that section 115BE is effective from 01.04.2017 and not applicable retrospectively to AY 2010-11. The Revenue could not produce any contra view. Consequently, the Revenue's ground on this issue was dismissed. Regarding the protective addition of Rs. 3,38,00,000/-, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion. It was acknowledged that the assessee was a facilitator earning only commission income and not the owner of the transactions. The assessee also confirmed not being involved in cash receipt/payment. Therefore, making additions of the total transaction amount on a protective basis was deemed unjustifiable. The Revenue's ground was dismissed. On the issue of unaccounted commission receipts, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that after analyzing seized material and removing duplication, the commission income was determined at Rs. 17,63,203/-. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to consider the additional commission income offered by the assessee and allow set-off of losses. The Revenue could not show any contrary view, and thus, this ground was also dismissed. The remaining general grounds were also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,37,500/-. The AO wrongly treated the offered commission income as 'money' under section 69A and incorrectly denied set-off of losses. The Tribunal noted that section 115BE is effective from 01.04.2017 and not applicable retrospectively to AY 2010-11. The Revenue could not produce any contra view. Consequently, the Revenue's ground on this issue was dismissed. Regarding the protective addition of Rs. 3,38,00,000/-, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion. It was acknowledged that the assessee was a facilitator earning only commission income and not the owner of the transactions. The assessee also confirmed not being involved in cash receipt/payment. Therefore, making additions of the total transaction amount on a protective basis was deemed unjustifiable. The Revenue's ground was dismissed. On the issue of unaccounted commission receipts, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that after analyzing seized material and removing duplication, the commission income was determined at Rs. 17,63,203/-. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to consider the additional commission income offered by the assessee and allow set-off of losses. The Revenue could not show any contrary view, and thus, this ground was also dismissed. The remaining general grounds were also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,37,500/-. The AO wrongly treated the offered commission income as 'money' under section 69A and incorrectly denied set-off of losses. The Tribunal noted that section 115BE is effective from 01.04.2017 and not applicable retrospectively to AY 2010-11. The Revenue could not produce any contra view. Consequently, the Revenue's ground on this issue was dismissed. Regarding the protective addition of Rs. 3,38,00,000/-, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion. It was acknowledged that the assessee was a facilitator earning only commission income and not the owner of the transactions. The assessee also confirmed not being involved in cash receipt/payment. Therefore, making additions of the total transaction amount on a protective basis was deemed unjustifiable. The Revenue's ground was dismissed. On the issue of unaccounted commission receipts, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that after analyzing seized material and removing duplication, the commission income was determined at Rs. 17,63,203/-. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to consider the additional commission income offered by the assessee and allow set-off of losses. The Revenue could not show any contrary view, and thus, this ground was also dismissed. The remaining general grounds were also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,37,500/-. The AO wrongly treated the offered commission income as 'money' under section 69A and incorrectly denied set-off of losses. The Tribunal noted that section 115BE is effective from 01.04.2017 and not applicable retrospectively to AY 2010-11. The Revenue could not produce any contra view. Consequently, the Revenue's ground on this issue was dismissed. Regarding the protective addition of Rs. 3,38,00,000/-, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion. It was acknowledged that the assessee was a facilitator earning only commission income and not the owner of the transactions. The assessee also confirmed not being involved in cash receipt/payment. Therefore, making additions of the total transaction amount on a protective basis was deemed unjustifiable. The Revenue's ground was dismissed. On the issue of unaccounted commission receipts, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that after analyzing seized material and removing duplication, the commission income was determined at Rs. 17,63,203/-. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to consider the additional commission income offered by the assessee and allow set-off of losses. The Revenue could not show any contrary view, and thus, this ground was also dismissed. The remaining general grounds were also dismissed.