Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia, Jamnagar vs The Acit, Central Circle-1(2), ... on 1 August, 2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"A" BENCH, AHMEDABAD
BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER
&
SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T(SS).A. Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020
A/w.
CROSS OBJECTION Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020
िनधारण वष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16)
(िनधारण
Asstt. Commissioner of बनाम/
बनाम Nilesh Mansukhlal Toliya
Income-tax Vs. Plot No.9A, Nr. Rishikesh
Central Circle-1(2), Apartment, Joggers Park,
Ahmedabad Opp. Virag Baug,
Jamnagar, Gujarat 400057
&
Nilesh Mansukhlal Toliya Asstt. Commissioner of
Plot No.9A, Nr. Rishikesh Income-tax
Appartment, Joggers Park, Central Circle-1(2),
Opp. Virag Baug, Ahmedabad
Jamnagar, Gujarat 400057
थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AAZPT5844Q
(Appellant/Respondent) .. (Respondent/Cross Objector)
Assessee by : Shri Biren Shah, AR
Revenue by : Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT. D.R.
Date of Hearing 22/07/2024
Date of Pronouncement 01/08/2024
ORDER
PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM:
These appeals in IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 are filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 -2-
- Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (in short 'the CIT(A)'), dated 01.11.2019 for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. The cross objections in CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 are filed by the assessee for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. As the issues involved in these appeals are identical and interconnected, all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
2. The appeal in IT(SS)A No. 25/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2014-15 is taken as the lead case.
IT(SS)A No. 25/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2014-15
3. The Revenue has taken following grounds in this appeal:
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 4,04,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act on protective basis being on money received through assessee by Neminath Trade Pvt. Ltd. (NTPL) from individual plot buyers 1.1. The source of funds received in cash could not be explained by the assessee, therefore it has to be treated as his income exclusively, as unexplained.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,80,593/- out of total addition of Rs. 13,61,185/- made u/s 69A on account of proportionate commission received by the assessee on sale of plots of NTPL
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,25,20,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 -3-
5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O be restored to the above extent."
4. Ground No.1 pertains to protective addition of Rs.4,04,00,000/- in respect of on money received through assessee by Neminath Trade Pvt. Ltd. ('NTPL') from the individual plot buyers. NTPL had purchased Gujarat Cooperative Oilseed Growers Federation ('GROFED') land situated at Jamnagar admeasuring approx.. 1,00,000 sq. foot from the State Government. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the case is that a search operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was conducted at the premises of one Ashit Vora at Ahmedabad, in the course of which unaccounted cash book of Barter Group was seized. It was explained that the entries in this cash book were in respect of receipt and payment of cash in respect of accommodation entries provided to various beneficiaries. From the seized cash book, receipt of cash on account of Jamnagar land was found recorded and in the narration the name of Nilesh Toliya (the assessee) was appearing against many of the entries. The assessee was also covered in the search operation. When enquired about the GROFED land deal, the assessee had explained that NTPL intended to sell GROFED land acquired from the State Government and that he had agreed to work as a consultant for the sale of the aforesaid land. The main role of the assessee was to bring the customers for which certain consultancy income was agreed to be paid and the sale of land of NTPL was completed in the process. It was admitted that unaccounted cash of Rs.14,84,00,000/- was received in total and the amount of cash received in F.Y. 2013-14 was Rs.4,04,00,000/-. In the seized material, the name of Nilesh Toliya, the assessee, was appearing as the person from whom Raju Barter Group had IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 -4- received the cash. Since the assessee did not explain the source of cash provided to Barter Group and the details of persons from whom cash received was also not identified, the AO treated the entire cash of Rs.4,04,00,000/- as belonging to the assessee and was added in his hands on protective basis. The AO had also given a finding in the assessment order that the substantive addition is required to be made in this regard in hand of purchasers. The addition as made by the AO was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), against which the Revenue is in appeal.
5. We have heard the rival contentions of Shri H. Phani Raju, Ld. CIT.DR and Shri Biren Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee. We do not find any merit in the addition as made by the AO. There is no dispute to the fact that cash of Rs.4,04,00,000/- was received by NTPL on account of sale of land. The ownership of the land belonged to NTPL and the amount of cash received was the on money received by the NTPL towards sale of land. Therefore, the sale consideration of Rs.4,04,00,000/- in respect of sale of land was liable to be assessed in the hands of NTPL. The assessee was only working as an intermediary and had facilitated the sale of plots. So far as the source of cash is concerned, the same was paid by the purchasers of the plot and if any action was required to be taken on protective basis, it should have been taken in the hand of the buyers. As regarding identification of the buyers, who had provided the cash amount, is concerned, the AO could have obtained this information from the copy of sale deeds, as all the information regarding the seller and the buyer(s) was available therein. The submission of the assessee that he was only a mediator arranging the sale of plots has not been denied and disputed by the Revenue. We, therefore, do not find any IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 -5- merit in the addition of Rs.4,04,00,000/- as made by the AO in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to delete this addition is upheld. The ground as taken by the Revenue is dismissed.
6. Ground No.2 pertains to addition of Rs.13,61,185/- made on account of commission income. In the course of statement recorded during the search, the assessee had stated that his main role in the transactions in respect of NTPL land deal was to bring customers, for which he had demanded consultancy charge of Rs.50Lacs. However, the Company had agreed to pay Rs.25 Lacs only, which was yet to be received. On the basis of these submissions, the AO had taken the entire commission received by the assessee at Rs.50 Lacs and the proportionate amount of Rs.13,61,186/- (in ratio of cash amount pertaining to this year to the total cash amount) was added as commission received by the assessee during the current year. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the actual commission received by the assesse was only Rs.25 Lacs only and accordingly, he had sustained the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs.6,80,593/-.
7. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in restricting the addition of Rs.25 Lacs on the basis of the amount received by the assessee subsequently on 14.12.2016 and which was shown as outstanding credit in the books of account in this year. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 -6- that no addition was required to be made in this year as no amount was received at all during the year.
8. We have considered the rival submissions. The AO had made the addition on the basis of statement of the assessee recorded during the search that he had demanded consultancy charge of Rs.50 Lacs from NTPL. However, the AO had conveniently ignored the further submission of the assessee, made in the same statement, that the company had in principally agreed to pay Rs.25 Lacs only. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the amount of Rs.50 Lacs was actually received by the assessee. Therefore, no addition could have been made only on the basis of the demand for consultancy as put forward by the assessee. The assessee had received the sum of Rs.25 Lacs only towards the consultancy charges on 14.12.2016 and considering this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in upholding the proportionate consultancy income of Rs.6,80,593/- in this year. Further, when the consultancy charge was shown as outstanding in the books, the assessee can't take a plea that it should be taxed in the year of receipt. We do not find anything wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.6,80,593/- in respect of proportionate commission income pertaining to this year on sale of plots of NTPL is upheld. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed.
IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 -7-
9. Ground No.3 pertains to addition of Rs.2,25,20,000/- in respect of unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee. In the course of search at the premises of the assessee, a document identified as Annexure A-8 was seized. Page Nos. 3 to 21 of this Annexure was computer typed which reflected various cash and cheque transactions along with the name, date and amount, Cheque No., cash amount etc. and the name of the assessee was appearing in these pages. Some of these pages have been reproduced in the assessment order. It was found that as per this document the total cash amount received from Nilesh Toliya directly or through others (Sanjaybhai, Vasim, angadiyas etc.) was to the extent of Rs.2,25,20,000/-. These seized documents also contained certain cheque entries in the name of Nilesh Toliya. When these cheque entries were co-related with the bank account of the assessee in Bank of India, Jamnagar Branch; it was found that the cheque entries appearing in the seized documents were reflected in the bank account of the assessee. On the basis of these evidences, the AO had drawn a conclusion that the reference of Nilesh Toliya or Nileshbhai Toliya as reflected in the seized document Annexure A-8, was in respect of the assessee only.
10. When asked to explain the entries in these documents, the assessee had contended that this seized material belonged to one Sh K D Karmur and that he had no connection at all with the seized materials. It was submitted that Shri K D Karmur was a IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 -8- partner of Krishna Infrastructure ('KI') and that the documents pertaining to his firm were kept at the premises of Shri Nilesh Toliya. The AO, however, did not agree with this explanation of the assessee. Considering the fact that the documents were seized from the premises of assessee, the seized materials clearly reflected the name of the assessee and the cheque entries appearing in the seized documents were also reflected in the bank account of the assessee, the AO concluded that the seized materials belonged to the assessee. Accordingly, the entire cash amount of Rs.2,25,20,000/- reflected as cash received from Nileshbhai, in the seized Annexure-A-8, was considered as unaccounted income of the assessee and added to the income of the assessee by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) had, however, deleted this addition for the reason that these cash amounts, which were given to KI, were already assessed in the hands of the said firm and that the addition in the hands of the assessee resulted into double addition.
11. Shri H. Phani Raju, the Ld. CIT.DR submitted that there was no dispute to the fact that the document Annexure A-8 was seized from the premises of the assessee. Further, the name of the assessee was appearing in these documents on a number of occasions. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that this document belonged to KI and that he was not aware about the nature of the transactions appearing in this document was not correct. The Ld. CIT.DR further submitted that the cheque entries IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 -9- in the name of the assessee as appearing in Annexure A-8 were tallying with the bank account of the assessee, therefore, the correctness of the cash entries appearing in these documents also cannot be doubled. In view of these facts, the onus was squarely on the assessee to explain the source of cash that was appearing in the name of the assessee in the seized documents. Merely because this cash had ultimately travelled to the account of KI, this doesn't obviate the requirement of the assessee to explain the source of the cash. He assailed the order of the ld. CIT(A) and strongly supported the order of the AO while contending that the addition was correctly made in the hands of the assessee.
12. Per contra, Shri Biren Shah, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that 'kachcha cash book' in Annexure A-8 was belonging to KI. He explained that the assessee was only a power of attorney holder of KI for doing administrative work of firm. He further explained that the cash deposited in the name of the assessee in that document belonged to the persons who had made advances or loans to KI and that the name of such persons was also appearing in the narration below each entry, in the same seized document. He contended that merely because the name of the assessee was appearing in the seized documents, this doesn't mean that the funds belonged to him. The Ld. AR submitted that in view of the fact that the real owners of the funds, who had advanced loan to KI, were also identified and mentioned in the Kachcha cash book itself, the addition as made in the hands of IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 10 -
the assessee was not correct. He further submitted that addition in respect of cash entries in this seized document was already made in the hands of KI and was part of addition of unexplained cash credit as made therein. Therefore, no addition was called for in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the materials brought on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the Annexure A-8 was seized from the premises of the assessee. Therefore, the normal presumption under Section 292C of the Act was that this document belongs to the assessee. However, this presumption can be rebutted if it is demonstrated that the entry appearing in the seized document doesn't belong to the assessee but to other third parties. The fact that the name of the assessee is appearing in this seized document has not been denied. In fact, the AO had verified the cheque entries appearing in this seized document with the bank account of the assessee and established the co-relation between the two. This fact has also not been denied by the assessee. In view of this finding, the AO was correct in coming to the conclusion that the entries in respect of cash transactions appearing in the name of the assessee in the seized documents are also correct. Therefore, the onus was squarely on the assessee to explain the nature of entries appearing in his name in this seized document. The assessee cannot be discharged from his obligation on the pretext or explanation that IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 11 -
the seized document doesn't belong to him but pertained to KI. Even it is accepted that this seized document pertained to KI, there is no denial to the fact that the name of the assessee was appearing in this document on a number of occasions. Therefore, the onus was squarely on the assessee to explain the nature of the transactions appearing in the seized documents in his name.
14. The explanation of the assessee is that he was given power of attorney for administrative works of KI and was also brought in as a partner of the firm. As an administrator, he had handed over the cash collected from different persons to the Accountant of KI for depositing the same in the bank accounts and at the same time instructions were also given as to who's cash it was and, in whose account, it was to be deposited. It was further explained that the date of cash deposit in the bank account and as reflected in the Kachcha cash book tallied, which proved that the cash did not belong to the assessee and that the transactions pertained to KI. It was submitted that all the entries of cash and cheques were verifiable with reference to the bank account of KI and the respective depositors and, therefore, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee.
15. Before we consider the merit of the rival submissions, it will be necessary to examine the nature of entries appearing in the seized documents Annexure A-8. We have taken a sample entry for the date 15.04.2013 for verification of the nature of IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 12 -
entry and the explanation of the assessee. The entry for this date is found to be as under:
Date Particulars Received Paid Balance
15/04/2013 Received from 18,00,000.00 18,00,000.00
Nileshbhai
thorough
Sanjaybhai and
Anilbhai
deposited in bank
Deposited in 005
account Via Dilip
Madiya 5Lac
Khima Ambaliya 5
Lac Dhar mat
Chavda 3
Lac Ramesh
Karmur 5 Lac
Lakhan Kar angiya 98,000.00 17,02,000.00
Sangaredy site
Hasmukh bhai 35,000.00 16,67,000.00
Bitubhai NCL 50,000.00 16,17,000.00
Salary office 1,50,000.00 14,67,000.00
Raj Petroleum 1,50,000.00 13,17,000.00
Star automotives 2,36,953.00 10,80,047.00
camper NCL down
payment
Head office 4,00,000.00 6,80,047.00
Cat grader 2,00,000.00 4,80,047.00
GMMCO booking
Sanjay Trading 4,50,000.00 30,047.00
Misc payment 30,047.00 -
office
As per the first entry, cash of Rs.18,00,000/- was received on 15.04.2013 from Nileshbhai through Sanjaybhai and Anilbhai and was deposited in the Bank. Narration below this line shows deposit in 005 account via Dilip Madiya 5 Lacs, Khima Ambaliya 5 Lacs, Dharmat Chavda 3 Lacs, Ramesh Karmur 5 Lacs. A copy of bank statement of Shri Dharmat Chavda has been brought on IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 13 -
record from which it is found that cash of Rs.3 Lacs was deposited in his account on 15.04.2013 and amount of Rs.3 Lacs was transferred to KI on the same day vide instrument No.36886. In fact, there are similar cash deposits and immediate transfer of equivalent amount to KI on various dates, in the account statement of Dharmat Chavda which tallies with the narration as appearing in seized document Annexure A-8. Bank statement of certain other parties, namely Shree Om Sai Enterprise, Sahil Constructions, Keshur P Dangar, Hemant P Karmur, Karshanbhai D Karmur (HUF), Parth Nitinkumar Pandya have also been brought on record in the paper book filed, wherein similar transactions of cash deposit and immediate transfer of equivalent amount to KI is appearing and such entries are found cross tallying with the entries appearing in seized document Annexure A-8.
16. It is, thus, evident from the nature of transactions that cash of Rs.18 Lacs received from Nilesh Toliya on 15.04.2013 was first deposited in the bank accounts of Dilip Madiya (5 Lac), Khima Ambatiya (5 Lac), Dharmat Chavda (3 Lac) and Ramesh Karmur (5 Lac) and thereafter immediately transferred to KI on the same date through cheque. Thus, the ultimate destination of all the cash was to the account of KI. So far as the source of this cash is concerned, the assessee has explained that the cash of Rs.18 Lacs received on 15.04.2013 was not from the assessee, but the cash belonged to Dilip Madiya, Khima Ambaitya, Dharmat IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 14 -
Chavda and Ramesh Karmur. The question that arises is, if the cash belonged to these four persons, why the cash was first given to Nileshbhai and thereafter deposited in their respective accounts. These four persons could have themselves deposited the cash in their own account and transferred the amount to KI. The nature of entries and the manner of transactions rather suggests that the accounts of Dilip Madiya, Khima Ambaitya, Dharmat Chavda and Ramesh Karmur and all other persons whose name is appearing in the seized document Annexure-A-8, were utilized for laundering of the cash by first depositing the cash in different accounts and then transferring the amount through cheque to the account of KI. This does not necessarily mean that the cash deposited in their accounts and subsequently transferred to KI belonged to them. In essence, they were mere intermediaries and their accounts were utilized for deposit of the cash in their accounts, and thereafter, transfer of the amount through cheque to the account of KI i.e. for the purpose of laundering. Whether the account holders, in whose account the cash was deposited, were the real owners of the cash deposited in their bank account or not, has not been verified by the Revenue as no enquiry was made in this regard. Apart from the cash deposits there were other cheque transactions in the name of assessee, which was transferred to the account of KI. The assessee has also not explained the purpose of the cheque payments through his account to the account of KI. IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 15 -
Until and unless this aspect too is examined, the real nature of the transactions cannot be ascertained.
17. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the unexplained cash of Rs.2,25,20,000/- was already added in the hands of M/s. KI under Section 68 of the Act and, therefore, no addition was called for in the hands of the assessee. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the cash either belonged to the persons who gave loans to KI or it belonged to KI who had borrowed names and bank accounts to accommodate its cash. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not examined as to why the payment was made through the assessee if the cash belonged to respective persons who had given loan to KI. As already mentioned earlier, they could have themselves deposited the cash in their accounts and transferred the amount to KI. Further, why this cash was channelized through the assessee, has also not been examined. A copy of the assessment order of the KI for A.Y. 2014-15 has been brought on record. It is found therefrom that there is no mention of Annexure A-8 in the said order and no addition has been made on the basis of this document. Rather, an addition of Rs.5,86,43,500/- has been made under Section 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loan taken from 20 persons. Further, a finding was recorded in that case that the entire unsecured loan was received through account payee cheques and the manner of laundering of cash into cheque transactions as appearing in this seized document was not referred at all. The seized document A-8 has neither been owned IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 16 -
up by KI nor considered by the AO while completing the assessment in the case of KI for A.Y. 2014-15. Therefore, it can't be conclusively concluded that addition in respect of cash entries in this seized document Annexure-A-8 was already made in the hands of KI. In view of these facts, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that addition in the hands of the assessee has resulted into double addition cannot be held as correct.
18. In view of the above facts, we deem it necessary to set aside the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional AO to examine the source of cash appearing in the name of the assessee in the seized document Annexure A-8. As the cash was deposited in the name of various persons and the assessee has contended that they are the real owners of the cash, the AO should verify the correctness of this claim after making independent enquiry from those persons. Further, the reason for routing all these cash transactions through the assessee should also be enquired into. The assessee has also not explained the purpose of cheque payments as appearing in the seized documents. This aspect should also be examined by the AO. In case the assessee is only found to be instrumental in arranging the loan transactions, then the commission income earned by the assessee for arranging such transactions should also be looked into. Needless to mention, the assessee should be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to explain the real nature of the transactions. The IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 17 -
ground taken by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.
19. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part.
IT(SS)A No. 26/Ahd/2020 - A.Y. 2015-16
20. The Revenue has taken the following grounds in this appeal:
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 10,80,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act on protective basis being on money received through assessee by Neminath Trade Pvt. Ltd. (NTPL) from individual plot buyers.
1.1. The source of funds received in cash could not be explained by the assessee, therefore it has to be treated as his income exclusively, as unexplained.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.18,19,407/- out of total addition of Rs. 36,38,814/- made u/s 69A on account of proportionate commission received by the assessee on sale of plots of NTPL.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O."
21. All the grounds taken in this appeal are pari passu to the issues decided in IT(SS)A No.25/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2014-15. For the reasons as already discussed in detail in the said order, the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed.
22. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w.
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 18 -
CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 for A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16
23. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR did not press the cross objections in CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 for A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16. Hence, both the cross objections are dismissed.
24. In the final result, Revenue's appeal in IT(SS)A No.25/Ahd/2020 is allowed in part for statistical purpose, whereas, appeal in IT(SS)A No.26/Ahd/2020 & Assessee's CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 are dismissed.
This Order pronounced on 01/08/2024
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 01/08/2024
S. K. SINHA True Copy
आदेश क ितिलिप अ िे षत/Copy
षत of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A)-
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad