Yogesh Kumar U.S. ORDER
Yogesh Kumar U.S., Member (J)
1. These appeals are filed by the two different assessees for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the case of Shri Madhur Mittal and for assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12 against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals), dated 23.07.2014.
2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:-
I.T.A. No. 5511/DEL/2014 - Shri Madhur Mittal:
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in giving relief to the assessee on the ground that identity and creditworthiness of M/s. TIDCO Ltd. is established.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in giving any finding as to the cash received from Garg Commodities, Mohan Commodities and Radhika Construction, in respect of which he himself has called for remand report and has not discussed the same in his appeal order.
3. The order of the CIT (A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law."
I.T.A. No. 5512/DEL/2014 - Shri Madhur Mittal:
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in giving relief to the assessee on the ground that identity and creditworthiness of M/s. TIDCO Ltd. is established.
2. The order of the CIT (A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law."
3. The assessee has raised the following common substantive grounds of appeal:-
I.T.A. No. 5513 & 5515/DEL/2014 - Shri Sumit Mittal:
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in giving relief to the assessee on the ground that identity and creditworthiness of M/s. TIDCO Ltd. is established.
2. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law."
4. Since all the above appeals are having similar facts and circumstances and substantial common ground has been raised by the respective appellants, the appeals were clubbed together and heard. Therefore, we proceed to pass common order.
I.T.A. No. 5511/DEL/2014:
5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who has not filed return under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in M/s. Triveni Group on 28.09.2010. The assessee belongs to that group. Notice under Section 153A of the Act and notice under Section 142(1) were issued. Assessment order came to be passed on 25.03.2013 by disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also made addition on account of unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs. 2,43,07,000/-. Accordingly assessment order came to be passed on 25.03.2013 by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,44,13,240/- as against the returned income of Rs. 6,240/-. As against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 the assessee has preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT (Appeals). The Ld. CIT (Appeals) vide order dated 23.07.2014 partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/- which was added by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of un-explained cash credit. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2014 the Revenue-Department has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.
6. The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in giving finding as to the cash received from M/s. Garg Commodities, Mohan Commodities and Radhika Constructions in respect o........