TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red submissions of both sides and perused the impugned order. After a judicious and mindful consideration, we find that there is a weightage in the submission of Ld. AR of assessee. It is true that the ITAT has considered the affidavit held on record in the Paper-Book filed by assessee but Para No. 18(vi) demonstrates only the ITAT's observations/ conclusions qua the affidavit but there is no indication that the same was confronted to the parties. In any case, when the assessee claims that he did not get opportunity to make submissions, we are of the view that we should not stop the assessee from making submissions. We do not hesitate in mentioning that ITAT is having motto of "Nishpaksh Sulabh Satvar Nyay", which means the ITAT always wants to extent impartial justice to parties. Therefore, we must rectify the slightest apparent error, if any, which might have been identified by parties. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the prayer of assessee to recall our order partly to the extent it concerns to the grounds re-produced in foregoing Para No. 2 of this order. Accepted accordingly and these M / A are allowed. The Registry is directed to fix the original appeals for hearing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the statement and also without giving an opportunity of the assessee to cross examine Shri G.C. Patidar whose statement was the basis of the addition made by the AO. The assessee challenged the addition made by the AO and contended before the CIT(A) that the additions were made on the basis of assumption and presumption and merely on the basis of few entries on the loose paper seized from the residence of Shri G.C. Gupta as well as the Tally data found in the laptop which belong to one of the ex-employee already expired. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO on this account and therefore, the revenue has filed these appeals. 5. Before us the Ld. DR has submitted that the AO has given the details of the entries found in the laptop seized during the search and seizure action and most incriminating data in the said laptop is regarding the entries in the file name XYZ 0809-2 which clearly shows that the assessee has taken amount of cash loan from individuals who are otherwise known to Shri Punit Agrawal Director of the assessee company. Thus, as per the provision of section 292C of the Act the tally data seized from the office premises of the assessee are deemed to bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- against which an interest of Rs.5000/- has been paid on 03.05.08. The interest payment is at the end of the month which is suggested from the next two type of transactions. On 03.05.08, an additional amount of Rs.60,000/- was given by him and therefore, the interest expenses paid has increased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.5,600/- on 06.06.08. The same interest of Rs.5,600/- was thereafter, paid till 07.08.09. On 07.08.09 an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- was given and interest on Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. 5,00,000/- + Rs. 60,000/- + Rs. 40,000/-) amounting to Rs.6,000/- was paid on 09.09.09 onwards. This fact also proves that the transactions mentioned in the Tally data is not a fiction of mind rather the transaction are actual transactions. 7. The documents seized from the premise of Shri GC Patidar a trusted employee of assessee is also getting corroborated with the Tally account "XYZ 0809 2". The sample copies of the seized documents from Shri Patidar's premise and the TALLY DATA is as under: AY 2010-11. Show cause as to why the amounts advanced by PATH to the directors/relatives shall not to be treated as unaccounted expenses in the hands of PATH and addition of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nting. The assessee has not given any evidence to substantiate perhaps during the proceedings the assessee has taken a plea so that further enquiry cannot be conducted on this issue. As the person about whom assessee is claiming that data belongs to has passed away. Sir, it appears that all the excel sheets referred to by Your good self in the captioned notice have been prepared by Mr. NileshTavresh during the course of learning of accounting and excel program from Mr. Patidar without having any resemblance to any actual happening of the transactions. 13.2.6 Initially assessee was saying that data does not belongs to it now is saying that data is prepared by Late Shri Nilesh Tavresh. The issue in question is not who wrote/maintained the issue in question is that whether the data is dumb or data is real. As established that the data consists of statutory payments made for entry tax or commercial tax and as stated in the paras above that the data contains numerous ledgers which are either getting fully corroborated with books of accounts or are getting partially corroborated. Hence, the data is important evidence and must be read in totality. Also the part which is not getti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash loans was mentioned. These documents were already mentioned in this assessment order which are page-25 & 26 of LPS-1 seized from residential premise of the assessee hence, the part-(i) Sir, none of the seized material referred by Your good self in the captioned notice conclusively establish that the assessee had taken and/ or repaid any loan otherwise then by an account payee cheque or draft. It is submitted that entire exercise made by your good self is sheer guess work and presumption. In none of the loose papers, it has been, explicitly or implicitly, mentioned that the assessee had taken any loan in cash or repaid any loan in cash. "is factually incorrect. The assessee has taken a plea to hide behind the cover of incorrect facts. 13.2.9 It is extremely improbable for a seasoned businessman with sound knowledge of law and having plethora of Accountants on the role as employees whose advise is readily available to him to show cash loan in the income tax return as mentioned by the assessee in his submission on the issue "on record that the assessee has not shown receipt/ repayment of any cash loan in his record. It is also an undisputed fact that the assessee, at no p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and not from the possession of the assessee. He has referred to the entries in the alleged loose paper seized from the possession of Shri G.C. Patidar as well as ledger account found in the laptop seized from the premises of the assessee and submitted that none of the entries are in the name of the assessee or on behalf of the assessee. Further there is no direct match of the entries or transactions in the loose paper seized from the possession of Shri G.C. Patidar as well as the ledger account found in the laptop. The dates as recorded in the loose paper seized from Shri G.C. Patidar are different from the dates from the entries in the ledger account even the amounts are not matching. The AO has assumed that the loose paper seized from the possession of Shri G.C. Patidar, bears signatures of the Shri Punit Agrawal, director of the assessee whereas there is no such fact brought on record or any evidence collected by the AO to substantiate this assumption that the said loose paper bears the signatures of the director of the assessee. He has submitted that some corrections were made in the hand writing in the said seized material which was initial by the person who has made the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore, it is serious violation of principle of natural justice. He has further pointed out that Shri G.C. Patidar has explained all the relevant facts and surrounding circumstances in affidavit about the alleged seized material and entries therein. The entries are not in the name of the assessee company or in the name of any of the person related to assessee. Therefore, in absence of any independent inquiry conducted by the AO to verify the entries in the seized documents either from the parties in whom name the entries are made or from Shri G.C. Patidar the said seized material has no evidentiary value. He has further submitted that when there is no corresponding asset in existence or other utilization of the alleged cash loan found then the presumption of AO about the transactions as cash loan taken by the assessee is baseless. The AO has not even verified or got confirmed the transactions from the parties from whom the cash loan are allegedly taken by the assessee. 6.2 Ld. Sr. Counsel has also relied upon the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of DCIT vs. Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 301 of 2012 dated 23rd May 2012 and submitted that when the AO has not pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se paper and statement of Shri G.C. Patidar without considering retraction made in the affidavit as well as without giving opportunity of cross examination to the assessee is not sustainable. He has then relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Ajay Gupta vs. CIT 270 taxman 71(All) and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that the assessment cannot be framed only on the basis of presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act. 7. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The AO has made the addition on account of unexplained interest payment in respect of unaccounted cash loan on the basis of the loose paper seized from the premises of Shri G.C. Patidar an employee of the assessee as well as the tally account in the name of XYZ 0809-2 taken from laptop. The details of the seized document are reproduced by the AO in assessment order in para 7 & 8 as under: 7.1 The AO then proceeded to conclude that the transactions in the tally account of XYZ 0809-2 are corroborated by the transactions recorded in the loose paper seized from the premises of Shri G. C. Patidar and held that the transactions to the tune of Rs.5,32,60,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from parties as mentioned in the loose papers. Further the AO has given only two ledger accounts as found in the laptop seized from the premises of the assessee but there is no entry regarding the payment of interest. Thus, even by considering the documents marked as LPS-1 and tally account found in the laptop would not lead to the conclusion that the assesse has paid interest on the alleged loan as there is nothing to reveal the payment of interest by the assesse. The entries as found in the account XYZ 0809-2 are regarding the credit and debit of the amounts which are all in round figures and do not represent any interest payment. Therefore, without going into the merits of the alleged transactions of cash loan taken by the assessee the documents relied upon by the AO itself do not reveal any payment of interest except the statement of Shri G.C. Patidar who has mentioned interest rate only and not the payment of interest during the year under consideration. We further note that the AO in para 13.3.5 rejected the contention of the assessee by considering the signature on the loose sheet on cutting and correction as signature of Shri Puneet Agrawal as under: "13.3.5 The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d nor rejected by the AO while passing assessment order. The CIT(A) has analysed all these documents in para 4.2.2 to 4.2.10 as under: "4.2.2 I have considered the facts of the case, plea raised by the appellant and findings of the AO. Admittedly, the sole basis of such huge addition is one the tally data recovered from laptop of old employee and loose papers sheets seized vide LPS-1 to 8 from premises of Shri G C Patidar. During the course of search, statement of Shri GC Patidar was recorded on oath which has been retracted vide affidavit dated 28.12.2016. Since, the statement given during search has been retracted, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. As a matter of fact the appellant before, AO as well as before me has stated that the entries in respect of laptop data which has been seized from the office of the company was used by one of its employee Mr. Nilesh Tawrech who was taking tally accounting training under Shri G.C. Patidar, who used to provide him hypothetical entries for learning purpose for that reason and for learning purpose name of the company was taken as 'XYZ'. The appellant has claimed not having any knowledge of company 'XYZ' wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of XYZ 0809 2 from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 & 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010". Appellant has strongly contended that the said printouts were taken by Shri G.C. Patidar and does not belong to him. The owner and creator of the documents have admitted that the said impunged printouts have been made by his ex-employee who is no more and had also explained the reason for preparing such documents. Shri G.C. Patidar has clearly stated that the tally accounts have been prepared for training purpose only and the data are picked from different sources which also includes random data of appellant. The AO failed to consider that neither the appellant nor his accountant has stated that any such firm actually exists and the transactions as mentioned in the seized printouts have been executed. The additions have been imposed on sheer presumption and assumption basis. Further, the AO did not even bother to carry out independent enquiries from the person whose names are mentioned on LPS-1 & LPS 8 which Was seized from the premises of G C Patidar. The trainee junior Nilesh Tawarech has untimely passed away. Therefore, it is impossible for the appellant to bring Shri Nilesh Tawarech in person for examina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta is getting partially corroborated. 4.2.4 Further, the AO on the basis of one loose sheet which is page No. 21 of LPS-1 and reproduced at page 100 of the Order and on the basis of page No. 23 of LPS-1 and placing reliance on second table has reached to an inference that during financial year 2008, the Appellant -PATH has received a cash loan of Rs. 115 Lakhs in cash from Agroh (in short AIDPL) and in next financial year the appellant has accepted the cash loan of Rs. 3,66,25,000/- from M/s Agroh Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd (In short AIDPL) and on other hand accepts the same to be cash- buyback of shares. The AO has also held that interest amounting to Rs. 14,83,394/- was charged by AIDPL. Whereas the said document only records some purported cash received and cash paid but no where the name of PATH is reflected. Even on second table at page 99, the name of PATH is not reflected therefore to attribute these transactions to PATH is fallacious. The said loose sheet was subject to varying interpretation in the year AY 2008-09 and is a non speaking/ dumb document. The director of Agroh cannot give any satisfactory reply during the statement recorded at the time of sear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a print out of excel sheet cannot be relied upon in the absence of any corresponding entry being made of the loan given by the counter party in his books. It is the stand of the AO that some of the Modi family member has given loan to PATH by cheque, therefore the entries in the loose sheet / tally data can be assumed to be true. The proof of actual transaction taken place cannot be substituted from the presumption howsoever strong it may be it cannot take the place of an evidence. It is onus on the AO to prove that actual transaction of cash i.e. movement of cash actually taken place with the help of documentary evidence. The assessment order does not discuss any such attempt by the department to conclusively establish that the transaction whereby debtor creditor relationship has been created between the two parties. None of the parties from whom the loans are allegedly taken by Assessee Company in cash were examined for the truth of the happening of such transactions. If the alleged cash loans are taken by the assessee company is taken to be true on the fact of it, then there arises a corresponding liability of income tax on such undisclosed income in the hands of giver of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llegation about alleged cash loans by the assessee, which he utterly failed to do so. CBI vs VC Shukla 3 SCC 410 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that loose sheets of paper cannot be termed as 'book' within the meaning of s. 34 of Evidence Act. It has also been held therein by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even correct and authentic entries in books of account cannot, without independent evidence of their trustworthiness, fix a liability upon a person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that even assuming that the entries in loose sheets are admissible under s. 9 of the Evidence Act to support an inference about correctness of the entries still those entries would not be sufficient without supportive independent evidence. Rakesh Goyal Vs. ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ (Del) 151 - The findings of Hon'ble Tribunal was as under:- "20.1 After perusing the findings of the CIT(A) and the submissions of both the parties, we do not find any infirmity in these findings. Firstly the finding of the CIT(A) has not been controverted by the learned Departmental Representative by filing any positive evidence. The copies of the page....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to give evidence on the truthfulness of the contents of the document is the writer thereof. So, unless and until the contents of the document are proved against a person, the possession of the document or handwriting of that person, on such document by itself cannot prove the contents of the document. These are the findings of fact recorded by both the authorities i.e. CIT(A) and the Tribunal." "15. Similarly, in the present case, as already held above, the documents recovered during the course of search from the assessee are dumb documents and there are concurrent findings of CIT(A) and the Tribunal to this effect. Since the conclusions are essentially factual, no substantial question of law arises for consideration". Jayantilal Patel Vs. ACIT & Ors (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) - Held that - "During search at the residence of Dr. Tomar, the Department official found a slip containing some figures. This piece of paper claimed to have been recovered at the time of search contains figures under two columns. In one column, the total of these figures comes to Rs. 17,25,000 from 31st May, 1989, to 8th Dec., 1989, and in the other column, the total of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents as they are simply the rough papers to be thrown in the waste paper basket. In this connection, the assessee relies upon the court decisions. CIT Vs. Chandra Chemouse P. Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 98 (Raj.): it is held that - (i) Additions can be made only when evidence is available as a result of search or a requisition of books of accounts or documents and other material. However additions cannot be made on the basis of inferences. (ii) No facts were available to AO after search and inference of AO did not fall within the scope of Section 158BB. (iii) Deletion of additions made by Tribunal of assumed undeclared payments made for purchase of property was on basis of facts. Ashwani Kumar V. ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) and Daya Chand V. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 327 (Del) and S.P. Goel V. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.): Nine out of 19 slips found were without any name or amount and therefore were dumb documents and no adverse inference could be drawn. Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India - 30 ITJ 197 (SC). In this case, the Hon'ble Court held that without any independent evidence or corroborative material, no addition is permissibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....persons whom the alleged payments were made do not find a mention in full. They have been shown in abbreviated form. Only certain 'letters' have been written against their names which are within the knowledge of only the scribe of the said diaries as to what they stand for and whom they refer to." 19. With respect to evidentiary value of regular account book, this Court has laid down in V.C. Shukla, thus; "37. In Beni v. Bisan Dayal it was observed that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate and in absence of such evidence no relief can be given to the party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another. In Hira Lal v. Ram Rakha the High Court, while negativing a contention that it having been proved that the books of account were regularly kept in the ordinary course of business and that, therefore, all entries therein should be considered to be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ils/figures mentioned in notings on page 117 to 119 of A/1 represent 'on money' payments by the assessee). (iv) Atual Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT (2000) 64 TTJ (Del.Trib) 786- Held that additions based on chit of paper, surmises, conjectures etc could not be sustained in the absence of any corroborative evidence supporting it. [Similarly in present case, neither either parties have admitted payment/receipt of 'on money' nor any corroborative evidence was seized to support the findings of the AO]. SK Gupta Vs. DCIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Del.Trib) 532 Held that "that additions made on the basis of torn papers and loose sheets cannot be sustained as same do not indicate that any transaction ever took place and does not contain any information in relation to the nature and party to the transaction in question." (vi) Jagdamba Rice Mills Vs. ACIT (2000) 67 TTJ (Chd) 838 Held that "No addition can be made on dump documents". (vii) In the latest decision of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court, Indore Bench in the case of the PCIT-1 v/s Shri Pukhraj Soni (2019) 34 ITJ 489 (MP) has held as under; "On the basis of search re-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e any addition merely on basis of suspicion, however strong it may be. The AO is not justified in presuming certain facts without having anything to corroborate. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, reassessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom it is alleged that the appellant has taken huge loan in cash are really existing person or imaginary person. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Held Yes. Whether further since entire decision was based on seized document and there was no material to conclusively show that huge amount revealed from seized document were actually transferred from one side to another, addition under section 69C were not sustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Vinita Chaurasia [ 2018] 98 Taxman.com 468 (SC) arising out of Order of HC in CIT Vs. Vinita Chaurasia [2017] 82 Taxmann.com 153 dismissed the departmental SLP and affirm the very principle again that when an addition was made to the assessee income by invoking 153C on the basis of document seized in the course of search carried out in the case of L and later L retracted his statement that said document belong to Assessee and moreover there were various internal inconsistencies and contradictions in document in question, impugned addition was to be set aside. In the case of CIT Vs. World wide Township Project Ltd (2014) 106 DTR Del 139 it was held that A plain reading of the aforesaid Section indicates that (the import of the above provision is limited) it applies to a transaction where a deposit or a loan is accepted by an assessee, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is the practice strictly followed in book keeping and accounts. 4.2.10 Even if the legislative presumption under section 132(4A) is available in the statute of income tax, yet the ingredient of default has to be established by the Department. In the case of Ushakant N Patel vs CIT (2006) 6 ITJ 312 ( Gujrat HC) it has been held that undisclosed investment under Sec. 69, the question was whether even if presumption under 132(4A) is established, yet prerequisite of sec. 69 has to be complied with. It was held that even if the presumption available u/s. 132(4A) can be raised against assessee, the ingredient by way of prerequisite condition of 69 of the Act has to be satisfied and cannot be presumed to have been established on the basis of 132(4A) of the Act. Section 69 opens with the word "where any financial year immediately preceding the Assessment year, the Assessee has made investment ..." Therefore it was incumbent upon the authority to establish that such investment had been made in a financial year immediately preceding the assessment year in question. In the case in hand, despite presumption, the ingredient of default i.e. actually taking or repaying loan or interest p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Prakash Chand Nahata vs. CIT 301 ITR 134 has held in para 19 to 20 as under: "19. In the case at hand Mohd. Rashid was summoned and his statement was recorded. A request was made by the assessee to cross-examine him. The same was not allowed. On a perusal of the assessment order it is perceivable that the Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon the statement of Mohd. Rashid. The Assessing Officer has expressed the opinion that there could not have been any transaction between M/s. Rashid and Co., as it was a small firm and not assessed to income-tax. 20. In the obtaining factual matrix the seminal question is whether the said statement of Mohd Rashid could have been utilised against the assessee without calling him for cross-examination. It is of immense significance that Mohd. Rashid has filed an affidavit in variance of his original statement. That apart, the Assessing Officer has ignored the affidavit and ascribed reasons how the transaction with the said Mohd. Rashid was not worth giving credence. The genuineness of bills produced by the assessee has not been accepted exclusively on the basis that the said Mohd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment Kishan Chadn Chellaram reported in 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd., reported in 2012 SCC Online ITAT 11821 and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2018 SCC Online ITAT 2891, held as follows:- ''It is true that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and therefore, it may be said that even without calling the Manager of the bank in evidence to prove this letter, it could be taken into account as evidence. But before the Income Tax authorities could rely upon it, they were bound to produce it before the assessee so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it by asking for the opportunity to cross examine the Manager of the bank with reference to the statement made by him. ....'' 23. The counsel for the petitioners also placed the recent judgment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disregard of that evidence he should in fairness disclose to the Assessee the material on which he is going to found that estimate; and that in case he proposes to use against the Assessee the result of any private inquiries made by him, he must communicate to the Assessee the substance of the information so proposed to be utilized to such an extent as to put the Assessee in possession of full particulars of the case he is expected to meet and that he should further give him an ample opportunity to meet it. The Income Tax Officer is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if he desires to use the material so collected, the Assessee must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity to explain it and controvert the contents of it. (emphasis supplied) [See Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC); C. Vasantial and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and Kishinchand Chellaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC): (1980) 19 CTR 360: (1980) 4 Taxman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. 7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proposition as discussed above we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A) qua this issue of addition made on account of unaccounted/unexplained payment of interest on the alleged cash loans. 8. In the result, ground no.2 of appeals for A.Y.2009-10 & 2010-11 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.12.2023. ============= Document 1 139 13.2 The Tally data clearly shows that the assessee PATH has taken huge amount of Cash Loan from numerous individuals who from other documents appears are known to director Shri Puneet Agrawal. Before going into the details the authenticity of the data and use of data for purpose of assessment is mentioned as under: 1. The Tally data is scized from the office premise of PATH at 76, Mall Road, Mhow hence, the presumption u/s 292C of the Act is on the assessee that data belongs to assessce. 2. The data in Tally belongs to PATH because the ledgers in the tally clearly are in names of directors, employees of PATH, expenses of PATH, bank account of PATH etc. It is most important to mention that the data has both accounted and unaccounted tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Modi, GL Modi, Kailash Agrawal, Kavita Nagliya, Manju Anil Modi, Mishraji, Narendra Kala, Neeraj Modi, Nitin Goyal, RP Poddar, RS Modi, Santosh Vrandavan Agrawal, Satish Mewara, Savitri Poddar (RP) and Sunil Modi. The names of the persons are also mentioned in BS-4 seized from office premise of PATH clearly indicating that the directors of PATH are in direct contact with the persons mentioned above. BS-4 is details of some party organized by director of PATH wherein the persons whose names are mentioned in account "XYZ 08092" were present. This shows that from these persons with which director of DATTY L 140 Document 2 No. Name Through Amount Due date FC (Rate revised fr Oct.06 0.10%) 01 D.M. Poddar (Papa ji) 06-12-08 6000900 6-Sep-09 Paid on 25-8-9 02 D.M. Poddar (Papa ji 09-12-08 5000000 9-Sep-09 Paid on 31-4-9 03 Raghunath Prasad Poddar 13-03-09500000 13-Sep-09 M 04 Manja Anil Agrawal (Poddar) 15-09-08 5000000 15-Sep-09-45215310 05 DM. Poddar (Papa) 18-12-08 5000000 18-Sep-09-10 1201310 07 Laxmi Narayan Kala 08 D.M. Poddar (Papa) 09 Smt. Vimla Nagliya 13-01-09 DS D.M. Pod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1010000 Revd Nitin Barue AF 15000 Reed Nitin Barun 01.04.08 15000 NS Bana AE [10000 Reed 02.04.08 Puneet Agrawal MG 200000 Paid Nitin Agrawal 201000 Paid Finance Charges Satish 70000 Paid Meware Mobile Recharge Finance Charges RS 461 Paid 120000 Paid PATH India 01.04.09 451 Agrawal Sanjay Mehta & 100000 Paid Associales Printing & Stationery 45 Paid PATH India 01.04.08 45 Repairs & Maintenance Staff Exp. NS Barua E 1585 Paid PATH India 01.04.08 2000 Faid 10000 Paid 1635 144 Anand Pathak E 10000 Paid Nitin Barua E NS Barua E NS Barua B PATH India 01.04.08 10000 18582 Paid PATH India 01.04.08 18582 50000 Paid 122337 Paid Mobile Recharge 200 Paid PATH India 01.04.08 200 Vehicle Hire Charges 2200 Paid PATH India 01.04.08 2200 Freight & Cartage 2100 Paid PATH India 01.04.08 2100 Conveyance AK Shrotriyaji E Conveyance 290 Paid PATH India 01.04.08 290 1200 Paid PATH India 01.04.08 1200 144 Paid PATH India 01.04.08 144 Pol Exp. Conveyance 2800 Paid 150 Paid PATH India 01.04.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loans is discussed separately. Here it is worth mentioning that tally data stored in Lenovo Leptop is also getting corroborated with the handwritten jottings seized from residence of Shri GC Patidar, thereby corroborating the Tally data as well as seized documents from the premise of GC Patidar. The corroboration is as follows: Corroboration of Cash Loan for A.Y. 2009-10 Cross Ref. of Seized 1-Apr-2008 to 31-Mar-2009 Seized document from: Patidar's document at Patidar's Residence residence with Tally Data Particulars Date Amount Amount LPS Page LPS No. paid Received No. No. Page No. Poddar 06/12/2008 5000000 Laptop tally 7 Aat urnam DM Poddar 09/12/2008 5000000 Laptop tally 8 data XYZ0809 DM Poddar 11/11/2004 1500000 Laptop tally 8 7 data XYZ0809 7,8,9. DM Poddar 15/04/2008 20,11, & Laptop 5000000 5,6,7,8,9, 12,13, taky deta 10,11,12 XYZ0809 14,15, 16 DM Poddar 18/12/2003 Laptop tally 5000000 8 7,8,9 data XYZ0809 7,8,9. Manju Anti Poddar 21/06/2008 1000000 20,11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the analysis of tally data "XYZ 0809 2', during AY 2009-10 cash loan received by PATH is Rs.5,32,60,000/- show cause as to why penalty u/s 269SS shall not be attracted on this issue. Also during AY 2009-10 cash loan repaid by PATH is Rs.49,00,000/-show cause as to why penalty u/s 2691 shall not be attracted on this issue. Also considering the fact that during A.Y. 2009-10 interest payment of Rs.82,03,684/- has been made show cause as to why Rs.32,03,684/- shall not be added to the total income as unexplaired cash available with PATH. That from the analysis of tally data XYZ 0809 2, during AY 2010-11 cash loan received by PATH Is Rs.54,65,000/- show cause as to why penalty u/s 26955 shall not be attracted on this issue. Alsa during AY 2009-10 cash loan repaid by PATH is Rs.2,55,10,000/- show cause as to why penalty u/s 269T shall not be attracted on this issue. Also considering the fact that during A.Y. 2009-10 interest payment of Rs. 58,55,122/- has been made show cause as to why Rs.58,55,122/-shall not be added to the total income as unexplained cash available with PATH. Further, the cash loans of Rs. 5,52,19,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Veh No Copit Page 1 Credit B000,000.00 4-11-2008 By 1Cash 143-2006 By 1Cash Receipt Payment Receipt Recaist 98 09 11' 10 00 000.00 25,00,000.00 4000 000 00 184 15,00 000 00 To Closing Balance 25,00,000.00 1,45,00,000 00 1.20,00,000,00 145,00,000.00 145,00,000.00 1-4-2009 By Opening Balance 1.20,00,000.00 13-4-2009 By 1Cash Receip TD 20,00.000.00 13-7-2009 To 1Cash Payman: 75 20,00,000.00 20-4-2009 To 1Cash Payment 102 2500,000 00 14-9-2009 To 1Cash Paymert 119 15.00.000.00 14-11-2009 To 1Cash Pay mant 156 15,00,000.00 75,00,000.00 1,40,00,000.00 To Closing Balance 65.00 000.00 1,40,00,000.00 1.40,00,000.00 8. An extract of the transaction recorded in the tally data is being reproduced as under: In Recovered Data Date Head Amount Receipt Name of Paid Party In regular books of Date Amount 02.04.08 RS Modi 1000000 Recd Nitin Barua AE 15000 Recd Nitin Barua 01.04.08 15000 NS Barua AE 110000 Recd 02.04.08 Puneet Agrawal MG 200000 Paid Nitin Agrawal 200000 Paid Finance Char....