Mridu Hari Dalmia vs DCIT

1 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ld. AO u/s 69A rws 115BBE of Rs. 12,82,99,000/- on the basis of dumb notings found during the course of search and the order passed by ld. AO that too without taking proper prior approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and the addition so confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.

2 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ld. AO of Rs. 58,01,430/- on account of interest income received from UCO Bank ignoring the facts of the case and statutory provision and the addition so made is liable to be deleted.

3 That the appellant craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other

1.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 28,04,641/-disallowing the non- genuine loss through transaction in mutual fund units incurred through sham transaction undertaken in collusion with M/s JM Mutual Fund, duly established by corroborative electronic evidences.

2.

That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessee in order to evade payment of taxes on the aforesaid income, entered into a sham transaction with M/s. JM Mutual Fund by which had earned tax-free dividend of Rs. 7,28,64,082/-and subsequently suffered short term capital loss of Rs.7,02,15,068/- for setting off the same against the income arising to neutralize the tax payable.

3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,50,03,700/-made under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash found and seized during the course of search, without appreciating that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the said cash, treating it as part of information regarding cash receipt and payment in handwritten slips found separately, ignoring the statement of the assessee that the cash actually found emanated from the savings.

4.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in accepting the alternative contention of the assessee that the seized cash of Rs. 5,50,03,700/- be treated as part of unaccounted income reflected in the handwritten slips found during search, without any conclusive evidence OR corroboration to establish a direct nexus between the seized cash and the amounts recorded in the said slips.

5.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in the absence of any reconciliation, documentary evidence, OR quantifiable co-relation between the cash found and the notings in the slips, the deletion of the addition leads to unwarranted and unjustified relief to the assessee.

6.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that separate addition of Rs. 5,50,03,700/-would amount to double taxation, without 6 bringing any material on record to demonstrate that the said amount was actually duplicated in the addition of Rs. 11,21,00,000/- made on the basis of hand-written slips.

7.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to correctly apply the settled legal position that unexplained cash found during a search action, if not satisfactorily explained by the assessee with documentary evidence, is liable to be taxed independently as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

8.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend OR withdraw any OR all grounds of appeal at any time before OR during the course of the hearing

TOTAL RECEIPT AND PAYMENT AS PER ANNEXURE A - 1 FOUND DURING SEARCH FROM THE PREMISE AT NARAIN MANZIL, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI (IN RS AFTER MULTIPLYING WITH THOUSAND)

3.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all these section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C assessments; framed on 19.05.2023, by the Assessing Officer In furtherance to the department's section 132 search action in M/s Dalmia Group of cases. There is no dispute between the parties that all the three Impugned assessment years herein A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are "unabated" assessments as on the date of search wherein any addition in the assessee's hands has to be made as to be based upon the contents of the corresponding seized material only as per PCIT Vs. Abhisar Builwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC).

4.

The above being the clinching factual position, there would be again no issue between the parties that the learned Assessing Officer herein had disallowed the assessee's alleged losses u/s 94(vii) of the Act hereby holding the corresponding transactions with M/s JM Mutual Funds, as sham ones only followed by his yet another estimated actual profit; both involving varying sums, in these three assessment years. We wish to emphasize here that neither the impugned additions is based on the corresponding specific seized material as it forms a mandatory condition in light of their lordships decision. We thus find merit in the assessee's legal arguments to quash all these assessments herein in very terms. Ordered accordingly. These three Revenue's appeal fail accordingly. ………….