IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.165/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2019–20)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–2(1), Nagpur v/s M/s. Metrocity Homes

11A, Ground Floor, Khare Town Near Dhanwantari Hospital ……………. Respondent Dharampeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAUFM9880A Assessee by : Shri Suren Duragkar a/w Ms. Hemmani Duragkar Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 25/11/2024 Date of Order – 21/01/2025

O R D E R

PER K.M. ROY, A.M.

Captioned appeal by the Revenue is against the impugned order dated

30/03/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019–20.

2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:–

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 98,18,540/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No.B/6 (pages 1 to 55), and the said document have the evidentiary value ignoring the fact the AO in the assessment order has given the finding that the exact date of receipt of on money is also mentioned on the back side of the some pages which confirms that the said amount has been received by M/s Metrocity Homes.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,64,450/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No. B/6 (pages 1 to 55), and the said document have the evidentiary and the said document have the evidentiary value.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.64,03,400/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No. B-2/31, and the said document have the evidentiary value.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that during the course of search/survey loose paper or any incriminating documents hold that high value and the same would be treated as base of making any addition.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that noting on the loose paper done by the employee of the assesee i.e. M/s Metrocity Homes and the onus to explain the noting on the loose paper lies on the assessee.

6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that seized documents itself act as a document which has evidentiary value and is sufficient to take it as evidence against the assessee.

7. Any other grounds that may be raised during the course of appellate proceedings.”

3. As could be seen from the above grounds, grounds no.1, 2 and 3, are the factual grounds which need to be adjudicated in this appeal, whereas grounds no.4, 5 and 6, are concerned with substantial question of law.

4. In the present case, the assessee is a Partnership Firm. As could be seen from the first appellate order, a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 “the Act”) was conducted on 25/06/2019, in the case of Shri Prashant Bongirwar. During the course of search and seizure operation, several incriminating documents related to the assessee were found and seized from the residential premises of Shri Prashant Bongirwar. On 31/10/2019, the assessee, for the year under consideration, filed its original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act disclosing total income of ` 33,83,430. Statutory notices were issued and served on assessee in response to which the assessee again filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 25/09/2020, declaring income of ` 33,83,430. The Assessing Officer then completed assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 153C of the Act on 28/09/2021, determining total income at `

2,29,08,670, after making following additions:–

The assessee being unsuccessful before the Assessing Officer, challenged the