AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These assessee's five appeals ITA Nos. 6128 to 6132/Del/2025 ; for assessme nt years 2015-16 to 2019-20 & 2020-21, arise against Commissio ner of Income T ax (Appe als)-3 (in shor t, ' CIT(A)'), Gurgao n's orders all dated 25.09.2025, passed in case Nos. 11029/14-15, 11256/15-16, 11740/16-17, 10627/17-18 & 10752/19-20, passed u/s 143(3 )/ 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act', respectively.
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from bo th the parties that all these assessee’s appeals emanate from the learned depar tmental authorities’ section 132(1) sear ch action dated 19.02.2020 carried out in M/s Dev W ines Group etc. There is further no dispute that all this lead to initiation of sectio n 153 A proceedings against him finally culminating in the learned Assessing Officer’s as many assessments, all framed on 28.09.2021, as upheld in the CIT(A) lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, we so ught to ascertain the issue (s) between the parties. Mr. Singla submits very fairly that the tax payer/appe llant is aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ assessment findings invoking section 40 A(iii) disallowance on ide ntical lines; in the former four assessment years i.e. 2015-16 to 2018-19 thereby alleging that he had paid cash to Shri Rajesh Kalra and incurring e xpenses on the corresponding real estate proje cts. The Reve nue is equally fair in not disputing all the se assessment findings in para 5 of the learned Assessing O fficer’s assessment order(s).
Faced with this situation, the assessee’s fir st and foremost argument is that he had not even claimed any such expenditure which could be disallowed u/s 40 A(3) of the Act for having paid the same in cash i.e. on account of the violation o f the prescribed mode of payme nt. We do not see any such assessee’s expenditure claim in either of these learned Assessing Officer’s assessment orders. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that the impugned section 40A(3) disallowance of alleged cash expenditure made in the assessee’s hands invo lving varying sums in all these former four assessme nt years is not sustainable in law which is directed to be deleted for this precise reason i.e., absence of the corre sponding expenditure claim(s) therefore. These assessee’s former four appeals ITA No s. 6128 to 6131/De l/2025 succee d in very terms.
Lastly comes the assessee’s fifth appeal IT A No. 6132/Del/2025 . Mr. Singla’s case before us is that the learned Assessing Officer ’s assessment or der at pages 1 to 3 alleging him to have made “patty” payments on 39 occasions totaling to Rs. 3,17,427/- which have been treate d as undisclosed expenditure u/s 6 9 of the Act. We find herein again that all these are the expenses of the assessee’s co mpany M/s Pivotal Private Limited where in he is the directo r than in the former’s hands having executed the corresponding projects. This is further not the Revenue’s case that the assessee has booked income or declared the said projects in his name all along as well. We thus find no merit in the impugned addition of Rs. 3,17,427/- which is directed to be deleted in very terms.
Our attention is next invite d to the assessee’s latter substantive ground in the impugned last assessment ye ar2020-21 directed against the learne d lower authoritie s’ actio n treating the jewellery amounting to Rs. 7,73,495/- as une xplained. We make it clear that there is no indication in both the asse ssments as well as lo wer appellate discussion that the learned lower authorities have considered both his socio-economic as we ll as accumulated past savings; as the case may be. We thus deem it appropriate that a lumpsump addition of Rs. 1 lakh only in the assessee’s hands wo uld be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee gets re lief of Rs. 6,73,495/- in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law .
No other ground or ar gument has been presse d before us.
The assessee’s instant former four appeals ITA No. 6128 to 6131/Del/2025 are allowed and his last case ITA No. 6132/Del/2025 is partly allowed; in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.