Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. This is the second round of appeal before the ITAT. Earlier this appeal was disposed off by the order dated 21.02.2019. Subsequently, the order was recalled by Misc. Application (MA) No.622/Del/2019 order dated 22.10.2019. In the MA, while recalling the order, ITAT has observed as under:

"3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the orders passed by the Revenue authorities as well as the Tribunal's Rumneek Bawa vs. ACIT order along with the all relevant evidences/documents. We find considerable cogency in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal has overlooked a crucial fact that the alleged incriminating documents during the search were recovered from the business premises of M/s Zoom Developers Ltd., hence, it belongs to M/s Zoom Developers Ltd. and not the assessee as per section 132(4A) & section 292C of the Income Tax Act and also that section 153A of the Act cannot be invoked in this case since the search has been conducted in the business premises of the company and not on the assessee and this legal ground was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal during the course of arguments, however, the Bench rejected the same on the premise that the assessee had not raised this legal ground in the grounds of appeal and not admitted the same by not following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of NTPC vs. CIT (1999) 157 CTR (SC) 249Ed. In view of above, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal committed an error apparent from the face of the record by not considering the fact that entries of cash payments made in the loose sheets were not in the name of the assessee but in the name of Mr. R. Bawa, Mr. Vikash Aggarwal and IRCTC and further noted that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which was added to the Income of the assessee was infact a cash entry in the name of IRCTC and the assessee had not nexus with the same. Therefore, in our view there is a mistake apparent from record in Tribunal's order dated 21.02.2019 passed in ITA No. 3083/Del/2012 (AY 2009-10), hence, we recall the Tribunal's order dated 21.02.2019 and accordingly, the Registry is directed to fix the main appeal for hearing afresh and issue notice of hearing to both the parties."

5. Pursuant to the above recall, we have heard the appeal. In this case, there was a search and seizure operation under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 conducted on 04.02.2009 in the case of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd and the residential as well as Office premises of Shri Ramneek Bawa, CEO of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. In the assessment order, Assessing Officer further noted that on going through the seized material, it was noticed that in the Office of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. some incriminating documents were found which disclosed that Mr. Ramneek Bawa, the assessee was handed over the cash amounts on various dates Rumneek Bawa vs. ACIT amounting to Rs.24,65,000/- by the company which was not recorded in the Return of Income filed by the assessee. Regarding the amount, the assessee submitted that this amount must have been transferred from Head Office to the Branch Office for various time to time expenses. This amount did not pertain to any personal income received by the assessee from the company that the same must have been received and accounted by the Branch Office. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied. He observed that assessee himself accepted that his annual salary income was Rs.1.31 crores instead of Rs.80.59 lacs as declared by the assessee. Entire amount of Rs. 24,65,000/- was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. Upon assessee's appeal part relief given by the CIT(A) of Rs.40,000/- and he confirmed Rs.24,25,000/-.

6. Against this order, assessee has filed appeal before ITAT. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that in this case, the addition is based upon one sheet of paper found on the premises of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd., that these were with reference to various expenses of Rs.24,65,000/- pertaining to M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. incurred through the assessee. That based on 3 rd party document, Assessing Officer considered addition vide order under section 153A even though the same is 3rd party document and even without considering that the action is already been taken in the case of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that with reference to the said document, Assessing Officer neither initiated proceedings under section 153C nor recorded requisite satisfaction as provided as per statutory Rumneek Bawa vs. ACIT requirement of Section 153C of the Act. He further submitted that in absence of initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act, there was no legal basis in the said case of the assessee with reference to assessment order passed under section 153A of the Act. For this, assessee's Counsel submitted following Delhi High Court decisions:

(i) PCIT vs. Anand Kumar HUF (ITA No.23/2021 dated 12.02.2021)
(ii) PCIT vs. Subhash Khattar (ITA No.60/2017 dated 25.07.2017) 6.1 It is further submitted that hence there is no valid basis for assuming jurisdiction and consequential addition in the case of the assessee. It is further submitted that even on merits, the said document is relevant in the case of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the company has fairly admitted the same and addition to the extent of Rs.24,65,000/- was made in the case of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. as per assessment order placed in the paper book. It is further submitted that the said income has already been subjected to tax in the case of the company, hence there was no valid basis for taxing the same again in the case of the assessee. In this regard, following case laws has been submitted: