Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 3 v. M/S GTM Builder and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

14. In this context, we may allude to the order of ITAT, wherein, in paragraph no.23, while affirming the deletion of additions carried out by CIT(A) towards unexplained share application money under Section 68 of the Act, it has been held as under:- “20. We have gone through the statement and also the ledger account and the bank accounts of the various parties from whom the amounts have been received. In the case of the Bic Consultants Pvt. Ltd. while the amount of Rs.[7] lacs has been received on 31.12.2005, the same has been refunded on 17.11.2007. In the case of Chinpurni Credit & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., the amount received was Rs.15 lacs on 02.01.2006, the amount repaid on 15.09.2006 was to the tune of Rs.12.[5] lacs and Rs.2.[5] lacs on 19.09.2006. In the case of CVH Sea Life Ltd., the amount received has been refunded by 24.09.2007. Similarly, in the case of E-Dynamics Solution Pvt. Ltd., the amount of Rs.[5] lacs which was received on 03.01.2006 has been refunded on 19.09.2006. In the case of EnpolPvt. Ltd., out of the amount received of Rs.15 lacs an amount of Rs.[7] lacs has been paid by 25.09.2006 and an amount of Rs.[7] lacs has been paid on 23.10.2007. In the case of Funtime Travel Pvt. Ltd., the amount of Rs.[5] lacs received on 03.01.2006 is outstanding. Similarly, the amount received on 31.12.2005 from Ganga Infin Pvt. Ltd. and the Garg FinvestPvt. Ltd. has been refunded on 28.09.2006 and by 10.10.2006. Similar is the case with other entities namely, Hillridge Investment Ltd., the payment received in January has been refunded in September 2006. Similarly, in the case of Rakesh Kumar, the amount received of Rs.[4] lacs in January 2006 has been refunded on 28.04.2006. The same is in case of Sehdev Kandol, Rightway Network Pvt. Ltd. Thus, we find that except Sparrow Marketing Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.[5] lacs, SDLW Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Sri Nawas Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. totaling to an amount of Rs.21 lacs, the remaining amounts have been either refunded within the year, within two years or adjusted against the bookings. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the amounts have been accommodation entries solely based on the statement of Shri Mahesh Garg. xxx xxx xxx

22. …….Thus, we find that while a valiant attempt have been made by the ld. CIT DR, there has not been any tangible facts to treat these amounts u/s 68 especially when there is no premium involved, the parties have not been inquired into revenue, addition has been made solely on the basis of Shri Mahesh Garg, amounts have refunded at various intervals or adjusted against the bookings, we hold that the action of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be valid. Appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed.

23. Regarding the appeal of the revenue, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has duly satisfied himself as the assessee and the parties could provide documents relating to identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the amounts received along with confirmations, address, cheque number and PAN. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue.”

15. With respect to the second contention relating to the finance received from M/s Arha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT, in our view, has correctly delved into the facts to come to the conclusion that there have been direct finance arrangements between M/s Arha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and the respondent-assessee.

16. For reference, the relevant extract from the order passed by the AO in paragraph no.52, wherein, it was held that the details of payments and receipts with respect to M/s Arha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. were not furnished by the assessee, is culled out as under:- “the assessee was not above to provide any details of cheques that was issued by the assessee and how many of these cheques have actually not been presented for payment or whether any real payments were ever made”.

17. The ITAT had rendered a finding of fact with respect to the above statement and held it to be factually incorrect observing that the bank statement of the assessee reflects the amounts received and paid with regard to M/s Arha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The relevant extract from the order of the ITAT reads as under:- “M/s Arha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

18. The assessee has received amounts varying from Rs.[5] lacs to Rs.67 lacs from various periods from 07.12.2005 to 25.02.2006 and an amounts have been refunded from 27.04.2006 to 19.05.2006 of amounts varying from Rs.[5] lacs to 30 lacs. There has been an agreement between Arha Buildcon and the assessee regarding booking of 60 flats in the project GTM Forest at Dehradun. This shows that there have been direct finance arrangements between the M/s Arha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee. In the search & seizure operation, an Indemnity Bond has been seized wherein the Arha Buildcon has arranged Rs.3.75 Crores for the assessee after calculation of cost of 60 flats each of 1650 sq. ft. @ Rs.1100 per sq. ft. As per the agreement, Rs.[2] Crores is to be paid before 10.12.2006 and from the records it can be found that the assessee has already paid Rs.67 lacs till 19.05.2006 which gives a credence to the reliability of the agreement. The Indemnity Bond, the amounts received and paid against the bookings cannot be suspected in the absence of any other contrary finding by the revenue...... The said lender has been existence for 10 years and assessed to tax. While making the addition, the Assessing Officer mentions that “the assessee was not above to provide any details 0of cheques that was issued by the assessee and how many of these cheques have actually not been presented for payment or whether any real payments were ever made”. The statement is factualy wrong as the bank statement of the assessee maintained at HDFC Bank A/c NO. 1322000007148, Palam, New Delhi clearly shows the amounts received and paid with regard to M/s Arha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Hence, in view of the facts are unable to agree with the contentions of the ld. CIT (A). The addition on this account is directed to be deleted.”

18. Regarding the third contention relating to the receipt of Rs.[4] lacs from each of 48 flats concerning Bhagwanti CGHS amounting to Rs.1,92,00,000/-, the ITAT has made a categorical finding that the addition was made on theoretical premise on the basis of presumptions and there was no evidence gathered, collected or investigated by the Revenue to support the addition.

19. We, hereby, take note of the observations made by the ITAT in its order in paragraph no.32, wherein, it was held as under:- “31. From the record, we find that Shri Tushar Kumar might have played some role but the society confirmed that initially each flat was estimated in the year 2003 at Rs.17 lacs and Rs.21 lacs for category A and category A[1] type of flats. It was also confirmed by the society that since there was a rise in the price of steels, cement and bricks, the cost escalation was worked out to be Rs.44,800/- which was duly approved by the members of the society in the AGM. The society cannot be said a benami concern of Shri Tushar Kumar/GTM since it is a separate legal entity and is a registered society under the Haryana cooperative society Act. The scope of its activities, objectives is governed by its Memorandum and Articles of the association and nothing else. The society takes its decisions through its governing body which are given such powers through General Body. It is also to be noted that all the legal, financial documents relating to the society, the minutes of its meetings, its members, its accounts etc. are kept with the society and no one else. The mere fact that some of the documents information pertaining to its members were found at the premises of Mr.Tushar Kumar/GTM did not make it a concern of Mr.Tushar Kumar/GTM. From the above it is clear that the society is an independent legal entity and is not a benami concern of Mr. Tushar Kumar/GTM.

32. Adverting to the evidences as to whether the assessee has received Rs.[4] lacs from each of 48 flats. We do not find any such reference or evidence gathered, collected or investigated by the revenue. The addition made was on theoretical premise on the basis of presumptions. Even the statement recorded from the members of the society did not point to any amount paid to the assessee or the Director in his personal capacity. The society has also clarified that an amount of Rs.17 lacs each for category A and Rs.21 lacs for category A[1] type. The cost escalation of Rs.44,800/- has been approved in the AGM. There was absolutely no evidence of payment of Rs.[4] lacs by each flat owner to the assessee. Hence, the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. The appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed.”

20. A perusal of the abovesaid would indicate that the ITAT has examined the facts in great detail. It may be noted that the ITAT is the final arbiter of the facts and appeal can be entertained by the High Court only if any substantial question of law arises. A conspectus of the proposed substantial questions of law signify that they only relate to the findings of fact and the order of the ITAT cannot be construed in any manner to be ex-facie perverse.

21. It would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT [(2001) 1 SCC 135], wherein, the Court has propounded the parameter to determine the findings of the Tribunal to be perverse. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted hereunder for reference:

22. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that no substantial question(s) of law arises for our consideration.

23. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed and are disposed of alongwith the pending application(s), if any. ITA 11/2022 and ITA 12/2022

1. These appeals are filed at the instance of the Revenue, against the order of the ITAT dated 10.02.2021,whereby, appeal of the revenue being ITA No. 3783/Del/2010 was dismissed and appeal of the assessee being ITA No. 3578/Del/2010 was allowed for AY 2007-08.

2. On account of similitude of facts and legal questions, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

3. For the relevant AY, an assessment order came to be passed on 31.12.2008, whereby, the AO made the following additions:a. Addition of Rs.6,84,50,134/- on account of the cash component of the consideration paid by the respondent-assessee for the GTM Forest and Hills Project, Dehradun. b. Addition of Rs.90,34,300/- on account of cash component of the consideration paid by the respondent-assessee for the GTM Kashipur-II project. c. Addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- was made in the hands of the respondent-assessee on substantive basis on account of investigation material which revealed that Tushar Kumar had received cash amounting to Rs.1,25,00,000/- on account of M/s.Haryana Citizens Cooperative Group Housing Society [“Haryana CGHS”]. d. Addition of Rs.1,80,00,000/- on account of the consideration paid by the Respondent to one Ajay Jain for taking control over the housing society, namely Wings Cooperative Group Housing Society [“Wings CGHS”]. e. Addition of Rs.34,78,000/- was made on account of unexplained investment in the shares of M/s. Sargam Estate Pvt. Ltd. f. Addition of Rs.34,65,559/- on account of unexplained advertising expenditure. g. An addition of Rs.4,27,22,971/- on account of undisclosed investment in the stock of jewellery pertaining to M/s. GTM Jewellery Mart.

4. Resultantly, the assessed income amounted to Rs.16,19,04,640/-.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the respondentassessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 28.05.2010, the CIT(A) partly allowed the respondent-assessee‟s appeal by upholding only the following two additions and deleting the remaining additions:i. Addition to the extent of Rs.3,01,00,000/- was upheld from Rs.6,84,50,134/- on account of cash component of the consideration paid by the respondent-assessee for the GTM Forest and Hills Project, Dehradun; ii. An addition of Rs.4,27,22,971/- on account of undisclosed investment in the stock of jewellery pertaining to M/s.GTM Jewellery Mart was confirmed.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue and the respondentassessee both preferred their respective appeals before the ITAT. Vide order dated 10.02.2021, the ITAT deleted the additions made by the AO in entirety.

7. The Revenue, therefore, being aggrieved by the order of the ITAT, preferred the instant appeals and has proposed the following substantial questions of law for our consideration:-

8. The Revenue has challenged the order of the ITAT, firstly, on the ground that the ITAT has failed to appreciate that the material seized during the course of search, recorded in Tushar Kumar's own handwriting specified the total purchase consideration at Rs.27,14,20,134/-, while the consideration recorded in the books for purchase of land in Dehradun was Rs.20,30,27,000/-. It was urged by the Revenue that the ITAT also erred in concluding that that there was no corroborative material, as there was identity in the particulars of the land mentioned in the seized papers. According to the Revenue, the order of the ITAT considering the seized diary notings as mere estimates of cost of lands and cost of sale value area has no basis in the facts of the case.

9. Secondly, the Revenue has also assailed the findings of the ITAT on the ground that confirmation of deletion by CIT(A) of Rs.90,34,300/- on account of cash component of the consideration paid by the respondent-assessee for the GTM Kashipur-II project is contrary to the respondent-aseesee's own admission that the said land was purchased by making a cash payment. As per Revenue, this aspect has not been considered by the ITAT and hence, the impugned order is erroneous.

10. Thirdly, it is stated that the ITAT has failed to consider the nature of association between the respondent-assessee and the Haryana CGHS. It is submitted that ITAT‟s finding that there is no link between the Haryana CGHS and the respondent-assessee is contrary to the record that documents like application forms, correspondence between members and society, letterheads, copies of cheques paid by the members were found in the possession of the respondent-assessee.

11. Fourthly, the Revenue has assailed the finding of the ITAT on the ground that the deletion of Rs.1,80,00,000/- on account of the consideration paid by the respondent-assessee to one Ajay Jain for taking control over Wings CGHS is totally erroneous. It is submitted that the ITAT has failed to appreciate that ownership of a co-operative society cannot be transferred as such and therefore, the respondentassessee had devised an MoU with Ajay Jain for taking control over Wings CGHS.

12. Fifthly, it was canvassed before us that the ITAT erred in confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs.34,78,000/- made on account of unexplained investment in the shares of M/s. Sargam Estate Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that neither the CIT(A) nor the ITAT considered that during assessment proceedings, the respondent-assessee had failed to offer any justification for treatment of Rs. 34,78,000/- being the share application money of M/s. Sargam Estate Pvt. Ltd. prior to its acquisition by the respondent-assessee. Further, both authorities did not examine the genuineness of the respondent's claim that the said money had been returned.

13. Sixthly, it was submitted that the ITAT has erred in confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs.34,65,559/- made on account of undisclosed advertisement expenditure. It is submitted that the undisclosed portion of the advertisement expenditure was discovered by the AO through independent enquiries.

14. Seventhly, it is stated that the findings of the ITAT that the addition on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery cannot be sustained merely because GTM Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. is a separate assessable entity, is completely erroneous. According to the Revenue, it is an admitted position that GTM Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. is a unit of the respondent-assessee company and also that the respondent-assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs.4.57 crores on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery and therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) should not have been deleted by the ITAT.

ANALYSIS

15. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

16. With regard to the first contention relating to theaddition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in properties in Dehradun, the ITAT has held that there was no scope to treat the amount as paid in cash to be brought under unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and came to a conclusion that there was no material to corroborate the addition as made by the AO.

17. In this context, we may allude to the order of the ITAT, wherein, in paragraph no.20, it was held as under:

18. With respect to the second contention relating to the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in Kashipur land for the project designated as GTM Kashipur-II, the ITAT, in our view, has correctly delved into the facts to come to the conclusion that the nature and contents of the seized material do not reflect any unexplained investment in the land purchased at Kashipur and the addition has been made on a presumptive basis.

19. For reference, the relevant extract from the order passed by the ITAT, wherein it declined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) is as under:-

20. Regarding the third contention relating to the amounts received from Haryana CGHS and the alleged illegal link between the respondent-assessee and Haryana CGHS, the ITAT, after analysing the facts has held that there was no link between the respondent-assessee and Haryana CGHS and it was not a benami concern of the respondentassessee company.

21. We, hereby, take note of the observations made by the ITAT in its order in paragraph no.31, wherein, while declining to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), it held as under:-

encashed in the bank account of the assessee or the Director. The presence of share certificate, application forms and correspondence at the premises of Shri Tushar Kumar and Shri Mohan Vohra swerved the Assessing Officer to make the addition. The society clearly submitted before the AO that he was neither a member nor office bearer of the society. He was a work supervisor for few contractors of HCCGHS and also to other societies. No link with the society has been found as per the statement of the society. The allegation of the revenue that the HCCGH society is a benami of the assessee company cannot be held to be a valid statement as the society is a separate distinct entity and registered with Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh. There was no proof that the society has given money in cash to the company or is Director. In the absence of any material depicting or indicating payment of cash to the assessee, no addition is called for. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this ground. The appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed.”

22. Regarding the fourth contention relating to the undisclosed investment in Wings CGHS for taking its control via an MoU, the ITAT, after carefully analysing the facts, held that the MoU cannot be treated as executed since during the search itself, it was conveyed that Tushar Kumar did not want to enter into an agreement with Ajay Jain as per the MoU and the said MoU was also not signed by Tushar Kumar.

23. In this context, we may refer to the order of the ITAT, wherein, it had declined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and came to a conclusion that there was no evidence of payment of cash by the respondent-assessee for taking control of the Wings CGHS. The relevant extract is reproduced as under:-

Tushar Kumar. The MoU cannot be treated as executed. There was no evidence of payment of cash. The seized material did not mention any payment of cash. Hence, it cannot be held that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.1.80 Cr. for taking the control of the WCGHS which is a Co-operative Society registered with order of the ld. CIT (A). The appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed.”

24. With regard to the fifth contention relating to the deletion of Rs.34,78,000/- made on account of unexplained investment in the shares of M/s. Sargam Estate Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT concurred with the findings as returned by the CIT(A) in deleting the additions and held as under:-

25. With regard to the sixth contention relating to the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs.34,65,559/- made on account of unexplained advertisement expenditure, the ITAT, after perusing the facts, again concurred with the findings rendered by the CIT(A) in deleting the additions and held as follows:

under the head “Direct Expenses” (Schedule 19) which has been ignored by the Assessing Officer.

46. The ld. CIT (A) further held that the expenditure on advertisement was debited in two division of jewellery and building amounting to Rs.28512704/- and Rs.39229402/- respectively as per the books of account of the assessee. During the assessment proceedings the AO has not considered the amount debited in the building division of the company. The total details of expenditure collected by AO is of Rs 3,19,78,263/- whereas the total expenses debited by assessee is much more at Rs 6,77,42,106/- (2,85,12,704 + 3,92,29,402). Therefore, on the facts of the case since no additions can be made on this account, the AO was therefore directed to delete the addition on this account.

47. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, we have perused the facts on record available before us and find that the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition as the total expenditure debited on account of advertisement was Rs.3.19 Cr. as against Rs.2.85 Cr. alleged by the Assessing Officer. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of ld. CIT (A) on this ground.”

26. Regarding the seventh contention relating to the addition on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery, the ITAT, after thoroughly analysing the factual position, deleted the addition made by the AO which was also confirmed by the CIT(A), and held as follows:

inventorised during the search in the case of M/s GTM Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd.

5. The valuation was done as per the price prevalent on the date of search instead of the cost price. The business of gold and diamond ornaments, the prices vary on day to day basis.

6. Shri Gautam Kumar stated that no stock of M/s GTM Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. was lying outside the premises.

7. The record shows that the G.P. was 19% as against the 17% allowed by the Assessing Officer.

8. Statement of Shri Gautam Kumar recorded on the date of search clearly mentioned about two distinct entities M/s GTM Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. and M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

9. There has not been any quantitative difference between the book stock and the physical stock in comparison with the items.

10. The difference in the value is only because of the different price taken by the valuer, the pricing existing on the date of search instead of historical cost of the goods.

11. Further, the labour charges have been added up twice in certain instances while computing the aggregate value.

12. The revenue could not repudiate the quantities tallying with the book stock during the search or even during the assessment proceedings. Reliance is being placed in the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 291 ITR 391.

13. The Assessing Officer also acknowledges that a separate company by the name of M/s GTM Jwellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. has been found from 26.07.2006.

14. The addition made was based on the statement of the Director of that company Shri Gautam Kumar wherein due cognizance was taken of the factum of the separation of jewellery business from that of the assessee business of building activity.

15. The panchanama of the copy prepared after executing the warrant in the case of M/s GTM Jwellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. has been served on Shri Gautam Kumar, Director of the company wherein the jwellery was treated as stockin- trade.

16. Even, if the jwellery is to be assessed in the assessee‟s hands it can be done only after recording a satisfaction of such items not belonging to the person from whose position they have been seized.

17. It is only after recording a satisfaction such items not belonging to the person from whose position they have been seized that the entity for the assessment can be shifted.

18. In the instant case, there has been no denial by the M/s GTM Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. with respect to their ownership of the items. M/s GTM Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. never mentioned in the statement that the jewellery do not belong to them but belong to the assessee.

19. The AO ignored this fact and without visiting the M/s GTM Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. for obtaining explanation and elucidation as well as discharge of onus on that entity regarding the ownership of the jewellery straight away and made addition in the hands of the assessee which cannot be held to be legally valid as per Section 132(4A).

52. Keeping in view these facts, since there is a panchnama drawn in the case of M/s GTM Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd., stock inventory was made in the said company and keeping in view the fact that M/s GTM Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. is a separate assessable entity, keeping in view the fact that the difference is due to difference in price but not in quantity, we hold that the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee in the instant year.”

27. A perusal of the abovesaid would indicate that the ITAT has minutely examined and marshaled the facts. It cannot be gainsaid that the proposed substantial questions of law are merely based on the findings of fact by the ITAT. The order of the ITAT on the concerned issues which stand raised before us, in our opinion, does not suffer from any perversity as claimed by the Revenue. Conclusion

28. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises herein, which would warrant our interference.

29. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeals stand dismissed. ITA 448/2022

1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Act filed at the instance of the Revenue, against the order of the ITAT dated 10.02.2021, whereby, appeal of the Revenue being ITA NO. 3780/Del/2010 is dismissed for AY 2007-08.

2. The respondent-assessee is a Director of GTM Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. An assessment order dated 30.12.2008 came to be passed qua the respondent-assessee, whereby, the AO made additions on account of the following heads:a) An addition of Rs.12,04,311/- was made on account of the respondent-assessee's failure to explain the nature of credits in its bank accounts. b) An addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- was made in the hands of the respondent-assessee on substantive basis on account of investigation material which revealed that Tushar Kumar had received cash amounting to Rs.1,25,00,000/- on account of Haryana CGHS. c) An addition of Rs.1,80,00,000/- on account of the consideration paid by the respondent-assessee to one Ajay Jain for taking control over the housing society namely, Wings CGHS.

3. Resultantly, the assessed income shot up to Rs.3,56,55,811.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the respondent- 28.05.2010, the CIT(A) allowed the respondent-assessee's appeal and deleted the additions made by the AO.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT. It is pertinent to note here that the Revenue had challenged the order of the CIT(A) only with respect to the deletions made on account of Haryana CGHS and Wings CGHS. Vide order dated 10.02.2021, the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

6. The Revenue, therefore, being aggrieved by the order of the ITAT, preferred the instant appeal and has proposed the questions of law for our consideration which are reproduced as under:

7. The Revenue has impugned the order of the ITAT, which has relied upon its own decision in the case of GTM Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 3783/Del/2010 in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. It is seen that the issue in this appeal pertains to the undisclosed income on sale of flats of Haryana CGHS and Wings CGHS, which has already been settled above to be merely findings of fact and which do not warrant any interference by this Court. Paragraph nos. 30 to 38 of the ITAT order in ITA No. 3783/Del/2010 make a detailed reference with respect to the unwarranted addition with respect to the issue at hand and the said factual findings does not seem to be perverse from any angle.

8. In view of the findings rendered by us in the aforesaid appeals being ITA 11/2022 and ITA 12/2022 for the AY 2007-2008, no substantial question of law arises and hence, the appeal stands ITA 226/2023

1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, filed at the instance of the Revenue, against the order of the ITAT dated 10.02.2021, whereby, appeal of the Revenue being ITA NO. 3782/Del/2010 is dismissed for AY 2007-08.

2. During the course of search on GTM Group of companies, certain documents relating to the respondent-assessee company were found and seized. Return of income was filed by the respondentassessee declaring nil income. Proceedings under Section 153A of the Act were initiated against the respondent-assessee for AY 2007-08. Vide assessment order dated 30.12.2008, the AO made additions on protective basis on the ground that substantial additions were made in the hands of GTM Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. on account of the following:a. Addition of Rs.6,84,50,134/- being income from undisclosed sources for purchase of land at Dehradun. b. Addition of Rs.90,34,300/- being income from undisclosed sources for purchase of land at Kashipur.

3. Resultantly, the assessed income shot up to Rs.7,74,84,430/- on protective basis.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the respondent- 28.05.2010, the CIT(A) partly allowed the respondent-assessee's appeal by upholding only the following addition and deleteing the rest of the additions: i. Addition to the extent of Rs.3,01,00,000/- was upheld from Rs.6,84,50,134/- by following its own decision in the case of GTM Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd wherein it was held that AO failed to bring on record any corroborative evidence to establish the payment of the balance cash paid for the GTM Forest and Hills Project, Dehradun;

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT. Vide order dated 10.02.2021, the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.

6. The Revenue, therefore, being aggrieved by the order of the ITAT, preferred the instant appeal and has proposed the questions of law for our consideration which are reproduced as under:

7. The subject matter of challenge relates to the protective addition on account of unexplained investment in properties in Dehradun and unexplained investment in GTM Kashipur-II project. The said issues have already been discussed above and held to be mere findings of fact which do not require any interdiction by this Court.

8. In view of the findings rendered by us in the aforesaid appeals being ITA 11/2022 and ITA 12/2022 for AY 2007-2008, no substantial question of law arises herein. Consequently, the instant appeal stands PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. YASHWANT VARMA, J. MAY 02, 2024