ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's contention that there was incriminating material during the search and seizure operation in the case of Shri Mahendra Shantilal Patel and his group was not correct, as the seized material reproduced in the assessment order was not co-related with the assessee's name or proprietorship firm. The mention of 'Anmol' in an Excel Sheet found at Shri Bharat Popat's premises was not considered incriminating material but merely Excel Sheet entries. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that Section 68 additions made in the assessee's case were not justifiable. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the cash deposits made by the assessee were explained through bank statements and transactions, and the unexplained credit entries were also explained by the sale of gold jewellery/bullion, with the assessee maintaining all relevant registers and invoices. Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly deleted these additions. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's contention that there was incriminating material during the search and seizure operation in the case of Shri Mahendra Shantilal Patel and his group was not correct, as the seized material reproduced in the assessment order was not co-related with the assessee's name or proprietorship firm. The mention of 'Anmol' in an Excel Sheet found at Shri Bharat Popat's premises was not considered incriminating material but merely Excel Sheet entries. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that Section 68 additions made in the assessee's case were not justifiable. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the cash deposits made by the assessee were explained through bank statements and transactions, and the unexplained credit entries were also explained by the sale of gold jewellery/bullion, with the assessee maintaining all relevant registers and invoices. Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly deleted these additions. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the cash payments made for the purchase of land by M/s Shah Hiralal Buildcon LLP (SHBL) and M/s Greenfield Reality Private Limited (GRPL) were made out of booking amounts received for flats/shops in the impugned projects. The amounts noted against certain individuals in the seized documents represented booking amounts received through them. Both SHBL and GRPL had already offered tax on these booking amounts. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the deletion of additions made by the learned CIT(A) in the hands of the assessees, including Shri Ankit Sureshbhai Shah (on a protective basis) and Shri Nitinbhai Kalubhai Desai. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that no addition was required in the hands of the assessees. The ratio decidendi is that if the entities undertaking the project have accounted for and paid tax on the booking amounts, which were then used for land acquisition, no further addition should be made in the hands of individuals who allegedly facilitated or contributed to these bookings, especially when the additions were made on a protective basis or based on proportionate share of alleged unaccounted receipts.

The Tribunal held that the cash payments for land by M/s Shah Hiralal Buildcon LLP were made out of booking amounts of flats/shops, and the amounts noted against individuals represented booking amounts received through them. Since the LLP had already offered tax on these booking amounts, no addition was required in the hands of the assessee, even on a protective basis. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the AO's additions. For the appeals concerning Shri Nitinbhai Kalubhai Desai, the Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to the case of Shri Ankit Sureshbhai Shah, with the only difference being that the addition in Shah's case was on a protective basis. Following the decision in Shah's case, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that cash payments for land were made from booking amounts and that tax had been offered on these amounts. Therefore, no addition was required in the hands of the assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's contention that there was incriminating material during the search and seizure operation in the case of Shri Mahendra Shantilal Patel and his group was not correct, as the seized material reproduced in the assessment order was not co-related with the assessee's name or proprietorship firm. The mention of 'Anmol' in an Excel Sheet found at Shri Bharat Popat's premises was not considered incriminating material but merely Excel Sheet entries. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that Section 68 additions made in the assessee's case were not justifiable. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the cash deposits made by the assessee were explained through bank statements and transactions, and the unexplained credit entries were also explained by the sale of gold jewellery/bullion, with the assessee maintaining all relevant registers and invoices. Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly deleted these additions. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's contention that there was incriminating material during the search and seizure operation in the case of Shri Mahendra Shantilal Patel and his group was not correct, as the seized material reproduced in the assessment order was not co-related with the assessee's name or proprietorship firm. The mention of 'Anmol' in an Excel Sheet found at Shri Bharat Popat's premises was not considered incriminating material but merely Excel Sheet entries. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that Section 68 additions made in the assessee's case were not justifiable. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the cash deposits made by the assessee were explained through bank statements and transactions, and the unexplained credit entries were also explained by the sale of gold jewellery/bullion, with the assessee maintaining all relevant registers and invoices. Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly deleted these additions. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's contention that there was incriminating material during the search and seizure operation in the case of Shri Mahendra Shantilal Patel and his group was not correct, as the seized material reproduced in the assessment order was not co-related with the assessee's name or proprietorship firm. The mention of 'Anmol' in an Excel Sheet found at Shri Bharat Popat's premises was not considered incriminating material but merely Excel Sheet entries. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that Section 68 additions made in the assessee's case were not justifiable. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the cash deposits made by the assessee were explained through bank statements and transactions, and the unexplained credit entries were also explained by the sale of gold jewellery/bullion, with the assessee maintaining all relevant registers and invoices. Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly deleted these additions. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's contention that there was incriminating material during the search and seizure operation in the case of Shri Mahendra Shantilal Patel and his group was not correct, as the seized material reproduced in the assessment order was not co-related with the assessee's name or proprietorship firm. The mention of 'Anmol' in an Excel Sheet found at Shri Bharat Popat's premises was not considered incriminating material but merely Excel Sheet entries. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that Section 68 additions made in the assessee's case were not justifiable. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the cash deposits made by the assessee were explained through bank statements and transactions, and the unexplained credit entries were also explained by the sale of gold jewellery/bullion, with the assessee maintaining all relevant registers and invoices. Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly deleted these additions. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153A were initiated in respect of a survey action where cash was found. However, regarding the disallowance under Section 14A computed as per Rule 8D, the assessee had suo motu disallowed Rs. 1,29,69,838/-. The Tribunal found that this issue was not related to any incriminating material found during the survey. The Revenue's reliance on the survey material for the Section 14A disallowance was not considered by the Tribunal as incriminating in this context. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had categorically found no incriminating material during the search from the assessee, making additions under Section 153A impermissible as the assessment for the year was not pending on the date of search and had become final. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment proceedings for AY 2007-08 were not pending on the date of search, and thus the assessment did not abate. Furthermore, the material found in the case of Maruti Group could not be treated as incriminating material in the assessee's case, especially since the Settlement Commission had observed that the investment was made by M/s. Maruti Buildcon, a partnership firm of the assessee. With the Settlement Commission accepting contentions regarding on-money payments in other related cases, the need for a protective assessment in the assessee's case was negated. Therefore, the CIT(A) was held to have rightly deleted the addition. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as academic.