TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR has submitted that the matter in ITA No. 115/JP/2024 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical except the difference in the amount disputed in other cases for the A. Y. 2013-14 to 2018-19. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore, for the purpose of the present discussions, the case of ITA No. 115/JP/2024 is taken as a lead case. 4. At the outset of the hearing the bench noted that registry reported the appeal of the assessee was delayed of 2 days. On this aspect of the matter ld. AR of the assessee submitted that though the order of the ld. CIT(A) is dated 07.12.2023 but the DIN for that order was generated on 11.12.2023 and therefore, considering that date there is no delay. Ld. DR did not controvert this facts and thereby we condone the delay in filling the present appeal. 5. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in upholding applicability of provisions of sec. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 to the addition confirmed by him vide ground No. (2) & (3) above. 5. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 5.2 In ITA No. 117/JP/2024 the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in upholding addition of Rs. 2111000/- made by the ld AO to the income of the appellant u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of agricultural land at vill Swaroopgarh Tehsil Hindoli, Bundi on the basis of page No. 5 to 9 of Exhibit 1 of the seized Annexure AS. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 718000/- made by the AO the income of the appellant on the basis of exhibit 2 and 3 of seized Ann. AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person is not proved. 3. That the ld CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 5.5 In ITA No. 120/JP/2024 the assessee has raised the following grounds: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 460000/- made by the AO the income of the appellant on the basis of exhibit-2 and 3 of seized Ann. AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person is not proved. The ld. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in upholding charging of this addition to the income of the appellant u/s 115BBE of the IT. Act, 1961 @ 30%. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 52000/- made by the AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged interest paid to/received from parties referred to in ground No. (1) above. 3. That appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them." 6. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act was ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the purchaser. The aforesaid sale agreement was subsequently registered by the assessee vide a conveyance deed dated 11-10-2013 wherein the sale consideration is reported at Rs. 21,25,000/-. The sale consideration is reported to be paid through cheque no. 11-4284 dated 10/10/2013 amounting to Rs. 17,00,000/ drawn on Allahabad Bank, Tonk Road, Jaipur and Rs. 4,25,000/- is reported to have been paid in cash. During the course of search action the statement of the assessee was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) wherein the assessee was asked to explain the reason for difference in sale consideration of flat at Ground Floor, in Plot No. 35, Chitragupt Nagari, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur sale agreement dated 03.11.2012 and registered sale deed dated 11.10.2013 executed by him with Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat, In reply the assessee has categorically stated that Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat is a builder and he has constructed total 6 flats in Plot No: 34 & 35. Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur and all the flats have been sold at the rate of Rs. 40 lacs per flat. He has further admitted that the registered sale deeds were executed at the DLC rate, therefore, there is a difference in consideration reported in sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... During the course of search & seizure action at the premises of the assessee situated at 35, Chitragupt Nagar-1^st Imliwala Phatak, a diary and some loose papers containing cash/cheque loan receipts & payments were found which were seized and inventorized as Annexure AS, Exhibit -2 & 3. On perusal of the seized annexure, ld. AO found that transactions of cash/cheque loan in the name of various persons were noted along with details of interest. Therefore, vide notice dated 16.09.2019 assessee was asked to explain the nature of transactions recorded on these pages, assessee was also asked to produce/provide whereabouts of the persons whose name was found recorded in seized annexure. In response, the assessee filed reply on 13.11.2019. The assessee in furtherance of his reply submitted an affidavit sworn by him on 18.12.2019, claiming that the transactions noted on seized Annexure AS Exhibit-2 & 3 do not pertain to him and he merely acted as a middleman. Apart from assessee's own affidavit, he further furnished affidavits of various persons wherein such person have sworn that they have entered into such transactions and assessee merely acted as middleman. Assessee also furnished iden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Amount AY 37 Shri Ramchandra Saini 05/11/2012 50,0000.00 2013-14 50,000.00 33 Shri Krishan Kant Sanadhya 07/08/2013 750,000.00 2014-15 33 Shri Krishan Kant Sanadhya 07/08/20213 1,000,000.00 2014-15 33 Shri Krishan Kant Sanadhya 07/08/2013 500,000.00 2014-15 33 Shri Krishan Kant Sanadhya 31/08/2013 500,000.00 2014-15 35 Shri Nawal Ji 02/09/2013 200,000.00 2014-15 2,950,000.00 26 Shri Chinnu 11/04/2014 20,000.00 2015-16 57 Shri Ghanshyam 05/05/2014 50,000.00 2015-16 58 Shri Rajendra Deshnok 07/07/2014 150,000.00 2015-16 26 Ashok 17/07/2014 8,000.00 2015-16 36 Shri Roop singh Jhohinda 15/08/2014 200,000.00 2015-16 37 Shri Raju Shanti Nagar 01/11/2014 25,000.00 2015-16 61 Shri Ramchandra Saini 01/11/2014 50,000.00 2015-16 26 Ashok 12/11/2014 15,000.00 2015-16 36 Shri Roop singh Jhohinda 15/11/2014 200,000.00 2015-16 &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant has made contention that no cash was actually paid as mentioned in the said Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding to sale but that was only a notional/symbolical amount and written for bank loan purposes. Further he made contention that the observation and finding of the AO are not on the legal footings for the reasons that the loan was to be advanced/borrowed on the security of the residential flan and the bank is only apprised/analyzed the period of payment of loan installments with reference to the salary income of the concerned person. 5.3 The appellant has claimed that the appellant and one Shri Satyapal Singh both were residing as tenants in the residential house situated at Plot No. 35, Chitragupta Nagar-1, Irmliwala Phatak, Jaipur since last more than 25 years. The said residential house was earlier owned by one Smt. Vidhya Mathur wife of Shri Basant Behari Mathur. In the month of October, 2012 the said house was purchased by Shri Chotu Ram Kumawat through a Registered Sale Deed from Smt. Vidaya Mathur & Others for construction of residential flats thereon. Since the appellant and one Shri Satyapal Singh were tenants in the said house and there was a pendi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esaid flat. Since, the assessee could not the source of same. Hence, same is held unexplained investment of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act and a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- is added back to the total income of the assessee and taxable at the rate of 30% as provision u/s 11588E." 5.5 In his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of action of search the appellant has agreed that the flats have been sold by Sri Chhotu Ram at a rate of around rupees 40,00,000 per flat and the registration has been got done at that DLC rates for all the flats and the appellant further clarified in his statement that is the reason for difference in the amounts mentioned in the memorandum and the registered sale deed. This issue is discussed in para 7.3 starting page 3 of the assessment order. Further as noted by the Ld. AD and as not disputed in appeal, Shri Chhotu Kumawat recorded u/s 131 of the Act dated 11-12-2017 wherein at question No. 12 he Acknowledge the sale agreement under consideration which clearly established the sanctity of the seized sale agreement and the cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- is also found to be true. The assessee has not furnished any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; x x Pr. CIT vs. Shri Roshan Lal Sancheti [IT Appeal No. 47 of 2018, dated 30.10.2018], Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. x x x x In the above judgment, inter-alia, the following arguments were taken on behalf of the assessee which stand rejected:- "Per contra, Mr. Prakul Khurana, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that the surrender was extracted from the assessee by income tax authorities during the search proceedings by use of coercion, duress and threat, which facts have been explained by the assessee in greater detail in the affidavit of retraction. It is argued that affidavits of Shii Suresh, Shri Ashok Jat and Shri Padam Kumar Jain were also filed, in which they have stated on oath that they did not own any land and therefore there did not arise any question of their accepting any advance from the assessee. Learned counsel referred to Instruction No. 286/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 issued by the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n.com 49 (Madras) wherein retraction made during the course of assessment proceedings was entertained and relief was granted on merits of the explanation. It is argued that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of statements which are subsequently retracted even belatedly as held by Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Sunil Aggarwal, (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 107 (Delhi). Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Limited Vs. DCIT (TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmanın.com 184 Rajasthan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. RatanCorpn., (2005) 197 CTR 536 (Gujarat); The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer Vs. Shri Devendra Kumar Choudhary, 2-S-10 to 2-S-18, Basant Vihar, Bhilwara, ITA No. 828/JP/16; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni, (2007) 291, ITR, 172 (Raj.); Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; x x x Bachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana) x x x x CIT vs. Hotel Meriya (2010) 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537 (Kerala)(26.05.2010) x x x x CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) (29.09.2010) x x x x Headnotes Section 132, read with section 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure. Block periods 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1995 and 1-4-1995 to 12-12-1995 Whether section 132(4) enables an authorized officer to examine a person on oath and such a swor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ging in transactions of sale and purchase of immovable properties and it cannot be said that he is not having other sources of income and he has been earning income as middleman and income as gain in property transactions also. From the facts of the case it is proved that in November 2012 the appellant had unaccounted cash and secondly that he invested such unaccounted cash for the purchase of property whereas the registry of the same took place after one year in Oct. 2013. Source of the cash paid in Nov. 2012 remains unexplained. In view of this discussion it is correct to bring to tax such unaccounted cash and alternatively unaccounted investment on Nov. 2012 in the hands of the appellant in the A.Y. 2013-14 pertaining to F.Y. 2012-13 and tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 6.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AD in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- The appellant has challenged that id. AO made an addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8.5 of the assessment order. 6.5 For the transactions tabulated in table # 2, appellant assessce neither furnished their names, address and PAN of such persons nor did he produce such person. Further, when the appellant assessee was asked about such transactions assessee admitted that such transactions were entered by him to meet his household expenditure. In the instant case it is apparent that onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table 2 was considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6.6 The appellant was having complete details of the parties for whom he acted as the middleman and such parties were tabulated in table one by the learned AO and for the transactions in table 2 the appellant did not furnish any details which is in itself sufficient to show that it was his own funds as when he could furnish the name address, PAN, affidavits and even produce some of the parties with respect to table i then why such details could not be subraitted by the appellant with respect to transactions in table 2. With respect to parties and tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereby dismissed. 8.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of interest of Rs. 8,25,900/- u/s 234B. In this regard it is stated that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore, the AO is directed to give effect of the same on the income determined vide this appellate order. Accordingly, the Ground of Appeal raised by the appellant on this issue is dismissed." 12. As the assessee did not find any favour from the appeal so filed before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as stated here in above. To support the grounds so taken by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission which reads as under : The above appeal has been filed by the appellant against the appeal order dated 07.12.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur in appeal No. 1346/2019-20. The appellant has raised following grounds of appeal before your honour :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by the ld. AO the income of the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant was not a member of M/s Kiran Fine Jewellers Group. It is further submitted that the appellant is a petty means person and there was absolutely no satisfaction with the IT Department regarding any undisclosed income of the appellant and also no warrant of search at the time of initiation of the search proceedings against M/s Kiran Fine Jewellers Group of assessees. 1(ii) During the course of search at the residential premises of the appellant, a diary was found and seized by the IT department. The said diary having notings of the transactions of loan(s) arranged by the appellant from his teacher colleagues, close family relations and further advanced the said loans to his said relations. Based on the said notings, a search warrant was obtained in the name of appellant from the competent authority by the IT department, search team already camping at appellant's house and proceeding u/s 132A of IT Act, 1961 was started. A notice u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 was issued, return of income for the assessment year under appeal declaring salary and bank interest income at Rs 2,60,540/- was filed. No return was submitted u/s 139 of the IT Act, 1961 for the reason that TDS was d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeal vide para No. 5.2 to 5.8. As evident and verifiable from the said paras of the appellate order that the learned CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the ld. AO has solely relied upon the statement of the appellant recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) also placed reliance on various case laws mentioned in the impugned order to strength his version. Finally, ld. CIT(A) confirmed / sustained the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of flat and also confirmed an addition of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 69A on account of alleged loans and advances relying upon the findings given in the assessment order by the learned AO. Further, it is also evident from the appellate order that the ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected the evidences and submissions made by appellant before him and also the legal objection to apply the section 69A of the IT Act, 1961 on account of loan transaction as an unexplained money. 3(ii) The appellant against the said action of the ld. CIT(A) filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Bench raising the grounds of appeal submitted in para (1) supra. 4. GROUND WISE SUB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orandum of Understanding should be executed for the said residential flat and the tenants will withdrew the civil suit pending before the Hon'ble Civil Court. 4(i)(i) As per above said agreed terms of the settlement, an unregistered (kachha) agreement-cum-MoU was executed on 03.11.2012 by and amongst Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat, Shri Satyapal Singh and appellant Shri Jaipal Singh mentioning therein total sale consideration at Rs. 40,00,000/-. Further to avoid future disputes and more secure the mutually agreed terms, the entire sale consideration was mentioned / shown in the agreement as paid in cash. 4(i)(j) The said whole exercise was exclusively done for the purpose of ensuring the compliance of the terms of settlement arrived in between tenants and the new owner of the house. Because the pending litigation with the Hon'ble Civil Court has to be withdrawn. Thus, in simple terms, it can be submitted that only to protect the interest of the tenants, the said symbolical / notional agreement to sale was executed. A copy of application submitted before the Hon'ble Civil Court to withdraw the civil suit is enclosed. 4(i)(k) It is also a fact that the appellant a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; 11.10.2013 को जो विक्रय पत्र पंजीकृत किया गया है उसमें फ्लैट सिर्फ रू. 21,25,000/- में विक्रय करना बताया गया है कृपया स्थिति स्पष्ट करे । उत्तर : छोटू राम कुमावत एक Builder है उसने Plot No. 34 व 35 चित्रगुप्त नगर, जयपुर में कुल 6 फ्लैट बनाएं है तथा....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....off M//s Andman Timber Industries held that without giving opportunity off cross examination the assessment completed is a nullity. Therefore, the statement of witness cannot be sole basis off the assessment without given an opportunity of cross examination and consequently it is a serious flaw which renders the assessment order a nullity. 4(i)(n) As per above facts and circumstances of the case, it is again submitted that the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by the ld. AO is based on presumption, surmises and conjectures only without bringing on record any cogent material and also any undisclosed sources of alleged investment of Rs. 40,00,000/- made in cash by the appellant and Shri Satyapal Singh. The submissions are also supported by the assessment order itself that appellant is only having petty income of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the Government of Rajasthan and Shri Satyapal Singh is a small agriculturist carrying agricultural activity at his native place. In support of this fact the appellant also places on record that he got noted the entire transaction in his above referred seized diary and in the said diary there is no noting about the above said alleged cash pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant on account of loan advanced to Shri Ram Chandra Saini on 05.11.2012. In this connection, the appellant submits as follows:- 5(i) It is submitted that as per the facts of the case the appellant was only a middle man / conduit and he was arranging money from the prospective lenders and advancing the same to the prospective borrowers (his relations). 5(ii) Facts :- During the course of search and seizure action at the premises 35, Chitragupt Nagar-I, Imiliwala Phatak, Jaipur, a diary and some loose papers were found and seized marked vide seized annexure AS, exhibit 2 & 3. Copy enclosed at PBP 7-158. In the said seized diary, transactions of cash / cheque loans receipt(s) and further advances were found noted. As submitted in para 1 supra that the appellant is a 3rd Grade School Teacher in the State Government and as per the requirement of loans from his close relations, he arranged loans from his fellow teachers and advances, some to his relation / known persons. The said facts are also verifiable from the copy of the affidavit(s) reproduced at page No. 8, 9 and 10 of the assessment order. A statement of the appellant was also recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act, 196....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid cash book-cum-cash flow chart. Further, the learned AO made the addition u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961, which is wrong as the said section is applicable on account of unexplained money. Further the said action of the ld. AO is also contradiction of his own findings given in the assessment order that, the additions have been made on account of alleged unexplained source of advance(s) made by the concerned lender persons. Thus, at the outset, it is submitted that the addition made by the ld. AO is apparently wrong and bad in law. 5(vi) It is verifiable from the cash flow statement page No. 1 that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- advance to Shri Ram Chandra Saini was out of Rs. 2,00,000/- received from Smt. Saroj Kanwar (Mashi Sha) on 14.10.2012. The said transaction of Smt. Saroj Kanwar has been considered by the ld. AO as not pertaining to the appellant vide Table No.1, page No. 14 and entry No. 16. Thus, the sources of the amount advanced to Shri Ram Chandra Saini has been accepted by the ld. AO being the amount advanced out of the amount / fund received from the person (whose transactions accepted as not pertain to appellant) as per Table-1. As such, at the outset, it is subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act is not sustainable in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we quash the same. As per above facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that the impugned addition of Rs. 50,000/- made by the ld. AO on account of alleged unexplained money may very kindly be deleted. 6. Ground No. 3 6(i) The third ground of appeal is challenging, the charging of tax by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act on account of alleged cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- towards purchase of a flat and Rs. 50,000/- on account of alleged loan received from Shri Ram Chandra Saini. In this connection, it is submitted that the additions made are wrong and bad in law and no income is assessable under section 69 and 69A of the Act, 1961. Thus, the action of the ld. AO is not in accordance with the provisions of law and the same deserves to be cancelled. 7. Ground No. 4 This ground of the appeal is a general ground and no adjudication is required. The assessee prays accordingly. 13. In addition to the above written submission, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee also submitted following b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Mausi Sa is accepted as not pertaining by the ld. AO. Table No. 1, Sr. No. 16 at Page No. 19 of the assessment order. 2(iii) In the cash flow statement, there is a receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 14.10.2012 from Mousi Sa and out of the said receipt Rs. 1,00,000/- was advanced to Shri Bhanu Pratap and Rs. 50,000/- was advanced to Shri Ram Chandra Saini vide Paper Book page No. 1. 14. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence & records: Master Paper Book S. No. PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENTS PAGE NO. 1. Copy of Table no. 1 (Transaction not related to assessee) produced/pasted in assessment order (s) by Ld. AO. 1 & 4-6 2. Copy of Table no. 2 (Transaction related to assessee) produced/pasted in assessment order (s) by Ld. AO. 2-3 3. Copy of seized Annexure- AS, Exhibit No.2 found/seized from the residence of appellant. 7-92 4. Copy of seized Annexure- AS, Exhibit No.3 found/seized from the residence of appellant. 93-158 5. Copy of cash flow chart 159-164 6. Copy of Affidavit of Shri Satyapal Singh, Ram Gopal Meena and Hari Narayan Jaipur who given advanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eement was seized and lying at Income Tax Department. (ii) Rs. 50,000/- on a/c of advance to Shri Ram Chandra Saini The appellant, advanced the money to Sh. Ram Chandra Saini and not borrowed from him. Thus, the requirement to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness on that account, addition has been made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) are inapplicable. The source of advance has been noted down along with the noting of the advance made at P. No. 61 of the seized diary and internal page No. 7 of the paper book. The amount was advanced out of the money received from Mausi Sa. The transaction of Mausi Sa has been accepted by the Ld. AO as not pertaining to the appellant vide Table No. 1, Sr. No. 16 and P.No. 19 of the Assessment Order. As per cash flow statement, there was a receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 14.12.2012 from Mausi Sa and out of this amount Rs. 1,00,000/- was advanced to Sh. Bhanu Pratap and Rs. 50,000/- to Sh. Ram Chandra Saini PBP No. 1. 2014-15 (i) An addition of Rs. 29,50,000/- is made on a/c of advances to following persons :- Name Amount Explanation of the appellant Sh. Krishan Kant Sanadhya 7,50,000 No advance b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jhinda 2,00,000 No fresh loan, but noting / entry is of the repayment of loan Rs. 2,00,000/- advanced to him on 15.08.2014 (supra entry). Fact is verifiable from the seized diary page No. 36 i.e. same page. Total 7,18,000 (iii) Addition is made of Rs. 62,000/- on account of Interest The appellant was a middle man and the interest received from the lonee was paid to loners. It is also evident from the seized record that the loners have filed affidavits that no interest was received by them and because of defaulter of the payment of the lonees, the principal amount is jeopardy. 2016-17 (i) An addition of Rs. 10,41,000/- is made on a/c of advances to following persons :- (Note - The total of the amount under consideration, works out to Rs. 10,21,000/- as against Rs. 10,41,000/- totaled by the ld. AO and made the impugned addition in computation of total income as per assessment order. The facts and submissions are verifiable from the details of the transactions given by the ld. AO in the assessment order. It is prayed that totaling mistake of excess amount Rs. 20,000/- at the time of computation of total income, may kindly be delted.) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discharged his primary onus cast by the act and the Ld. AO has not put any efforts to verify the contents of the affidavit of Shri Nawal Kishore Sharma. In this connection, it is further submitted that being a finally settled legal position on the issue, in the interest of justice, the Ld. AO should have examined the contents of affidavit from Shri Nawal Kishore Sharma. In view of the above facts, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO is grossly wrong and unwarranted. The appellant prays for relief accordingly. Sh. Nawal Ji 3,00,000 No money was advanced on 10.07.2016. The facts are verifiable from the notings against the entry at Page No. 43 itself. The notings is "3,00,000/-पहले से"Further, there is a reference of Page No. 35 against the entry in the Table drawn by the Ld. AO, it is verifiable on the said Page No. 35 that the date of Rs. 3,00,000/- was 02.09.2013. Thus, the impugned addition made is wrong and unsustainable. Sh. Morpal 1,50,000 The amount was advanced, out of Rs. 10,00,000/- received from Shri Nawal Kishore Sharma on 10.07.2016. The facts are verifiable from the cash flow statement. Sh. Morpal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he principal amount is jeopardy. II. Ground of appeal regarding 115 BBE, written submissions and case laws relied may kindly be considered. 16. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee is a salaried person. Since, the address provided by Shri Ashok Singh, where the assessee leaves presently, searched team asked about Shri Ashok Singh but he was not residing there. But since the search was for the premises, the assessee was covered. In the search one diary was found and one agreement was found. The fact was that the assessee was tenant and to vacate the premises and for the safety of the assessee an agreement was prepared in the beginning so as to have the confirmed allotment of the flat the same was prepared at rounded figure and ultimate after negotiating the price when the flat become ready the same were registered in the name of the assessee by paying the amount and the source of the said purchase of flat is already explained at the time of the assessment proceeding to the ld. AO. Vide paper book page 168 and 168 assessee provided the proof that there was civil case for the property and thereb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ser. The aforesaid sale agreement was subsequently registered by the assessee vide a conveyance deed dated 11-10-2013 wherein the sale consideration is reported at Rs. 21,25,000/-. The sale consideration is reported to be paid through cheque no. 11-4284 dated 10/10/2013 amounting to Rs. 17,00,000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, Tonk Road, Jaipur and Rs. 4,25,000/- is reported to have been paid in cash. During the course of search action the statement of the assessee was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) wherein the assessee was asked to explain the reason for difference in sale consideration of flat at Ground Floor, in Plot No. 35, Chitragupt Nagari, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur sale agreement dated 03.11.2012 and registered sale deed dated 11.10.2013 executed by him with Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat, In reply the assessee has categorically stated that Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat is a builder and he has constructed total 6 flats in Plot No: 34 & 35. Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur and all the flats have been sold at the rate of Rs. 40 lacs per flat. He has further admitted that the registered sale deeds were executed at the DLC rate, therefore, there is a difference in consideration reported in sale agreement & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not furnished any documentary evidence as such which can substantiate that no cash amount was paid whereas in the seized sale agreement it has been categorically mentioned that the seller has received Rs. 40,00,000/- from the assessee in cash. Registration of the property has been done after one year in Oct. 2013 whereas the agreement in question is executed on 03-11-2012. It is clearly mentioned in the agreement of November 2012 that payment in cash of Rs. 40 lakhs have already been made between the parties. As regards the submission of the assessee-appellant that only half of the alleged cash could be added in the hands of the appellant because half of the share pertained to Shri satyapal Singh was not considered as it has not been shown that this is not an afterthought and that it was the factual claim of the appellant since beginning. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that in October 2013 Sri Satyapal Singh has entered into registered agreement of purchase with respect to the first floor of the building whereas in the same month in October 2013 Shri Jaipal Singh the appellant has entered in registered agreement of purchase with respect to the ground floor which is the property in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was ongoing litigation in between the previous owner Smt. Vidhya Mathur and the above referred tenants since the year 2006. The said litigation was pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Civil Court, Jaipur (Raj.) 4(i)(f) As Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat purchased the house for construction of residential flats and sale thereof. Accordingly, as a prudent business man policy to carry on smooth / hassle free business activities, he approached to Shri Satyapal Singh and the appellant to settle the said dispute regarding vacation of tenanted house out of court. 4(i)(g) After negotiation in between the above referred concerned parties, it was agreed that Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat will allot / sale a ground floor flat for a total consideration of Rs. 21,25,000/- to the tenants i.e. Shri Satyapal Singh and appellant Shri Jaipal Singh and the tenants shall withdraw the civil suit petition. 4(i)(h) It was a fact that in connection of flats about 1 to 2 years time would be taken and as such to protect the interest, to honour and make binding the mutually agreed terms of the settlement. It was mutually agreed in between both the parties that an agreement to Sale-cum-Me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2346;ुर में श्री छोटू राम कुमावत से खरीदा है उसका इकरार नामा आपके और छोटू राम के बीच दिनांक 03.11.2012 को लिखा गया है, 100 रू. के stamp paper पर लिखा गया है। जिसमें छोटू राम कुमावत ने रू. 40,00,000/- आपसे प्राप्त करना स्वीकार किया है। परन्तु दिनांè....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m)It is also learnt from the assessment order that a statement of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat was also recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 11.12.2017 and he allegedly confirmed the agreement to sale under consideration. However, the ld. AO neither informed about the said statement nor a copy thereof was supplied to appellant. Thus, the impugned proceeding has been conducted behind the back of the appellant and the same are also without providing any opportunity to cross examine Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat. In this connection, it is submitted that the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings, filed an application on 06.07.2023 to the ld. AO to supply a copy of statements of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat and Shri Radhey Shyam Choudhary recorded during the post search proceedings. But, till today no copy of the said statements have been supplied to the appellant. A certified copy having acknowledgment of filing the said application with the ld. AO is enclosed herewith. Thus, the action of the learned AO is completely against the settled legal position on the issue and also against the principle of natural justice refer M/s Andman Timber Industries - the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income or not under section 69 has to be considered in the light of the facts of each case." In view of the above facts and circumstances of appellant further submits that he made no unexplained alleged investment of Rs. 40,00,000/- in purchase of the flat. It is prayed that the impugned addition made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this account deserves to be deleted. 19. The above contention raised with supporting evidence has not been controverted by the ld. AO through the ld. DR and there is no contrary finding of the lower authority to the submission so made. The document so relied upon was already placed on record by the assessee and therefore, when the assessee on oath submitted the fact that they were tenants and were withdrawing the case the agreement was not proved wrong. The bench noted that sale agreement dated 03.11.2012 was found and seized (page 24 paper book). This agreement was between Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat (Seller) and Shri Satyapal Singh (Brother of the assessee) and Shri Jaipal Singh (assessee). This deed itself confirms the following facts: a) Assessee and his brother were tenant of the property for last 25 years. The pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act reads as under Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. The above addition consist of entry recorded at page 37 of the diary wherein it is written that on 05.11.2012 the assessee has given money of Rs. 50,000/- to Shri Ramchandra Saini. Thus, the advance of loan given by the assessee cannot be termed as unexplained money as per the above definition but can be termed as unexplained money. Therefore, the invocation of the section while making the addition was wrong. Not only that it is not the case of section 69 of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld. AO has been upheld. Facts of the present appeal being pari-materia with the facts of the appeal in the assessment year 2013-14 the findings of the appeal order in the case of assessment year 2013-14 will apply mutatis-mutandis to the present appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 and it is held accordingly. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed." As is evident from the above observation that the contention raised by the assessee for addition of Rs. 29,50,000/- has not been dealt with and has decided considering the earlier years observation. 25. Here it is necessary to take note of the facts as to why the ld. AO made the addition. The brief facts as culled out from the assessment order is that while search conducted by the revenue a diary and some loose papers containing cash / cheque loan receipts and payments were found which were seized and inventoried as Annexure AS Exhibit - 2 & 3. On perusal of seized annexure it was found that transaction of cash / cheque loan in the name of the various persons were noted along with details of interest. Therefore, vide notice dated 16.09.2019 assessee was asked to explain the nature of transactions recorded on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring at page 16 of the assessment order. As is evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A) he has not given his finding separately the bench decided to consider the explanation given by the assessee as this paper book and explanation were also made available to the ld. AO through ld. DR and there is no contra submission so far made before the bench. As there were five entries which were disputed we discuss one by one. The four-transaction listed at page 33 of the seized material and relates to Shri Krishan Kant Sanadhya. Out of four transactions three were dated 07.08.2013 wherein considering the submission of the assessee and explanation of the assessee, the bench noted that on 07.08.2013 one transaction Rs. 10,00,000/- was given to Shri Krishan Kant (KK) the source of that money Rs. 5 lac from Shri Radhey Shyam Choudhary vide entry no. 2 at the same page paper book page 128 and Rs. 5 lac returned back from Shri S. Janiyani vide internal page 31 of seized diary paper book page 126. The other two entries denotes the calculation of source of 10 lac given as it evident from the same page. The entry dated 31.08.2013 listed at page 33 same page is returned back money and therefore b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in the month of November, 2014, 5.3 The appellant has submitted the fact that the agricultural land owner Shri Nirmal Singh Anand could not fulfill the terms of the agreement and ultimately the prospective buyer M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt. Ltd. refused to purchase the said land. The appellant further made contention that he has not paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by cheque to Shri Nirmal Singh Anand. The appellant further submitted that the entire amount of Rs. 21,11,000/- was paid in cash by Shri Hari Narain Jat (Rs. 10,11,000/-1, Shri Ram Gopal Meena (Rs. 6,00,000/-) and Shri Satyapal Singh (Rs. 5,00,000/-). Further, the appellant made contention that when the buyer M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt. Ltd. refused to purchase the land and accordingly the appellant searched a new buyer, namely, Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma, Shri Dhirendra Sharma, and Shri Lokendra Sharma. A copy of the Registered Sale Deed made and executed in between Shri Nirmal Singh Anand and the above said buyers along with copy of Revenue Jamabandi are enclosed herewith. Further, the amount originally paid by the middleman Shri Hari Narain Jat, Shri Ram Gopal Meena and Shri Satyapal Singh who were witnesses alon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be executed as the seller could not fulfilled some condition hence M/s Shri Harisar Pvt. Ltd. did not purchase the land. He further claimed that he acted as a middle man only and no payment was made by him as such as mentioned in the sale agreement. The assessee further claimed that the land under consideration is registered in favour of another person namely Shri Naresh Kumar, Dhirendra Sharma, Lokendra Sharma residence Lovely Home Apartment, Plot No. 5, Delhi. The assessee further claimed that the amount reported in sale agreement including cash component was arranged by the prospective buyers i.e. M/s Harisar Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ramgopal Meena and others. He also furnished affidavit of Shri Hari Narayan Jat, Shri Ramgopal Meena and Shri Satyapal Singh wherein it has been mentioned that the agreement was written in the name of Shri Jaipal Singh as a purchaser since, he was local and known to the seller Shri Nirmal Singh. In these affidavit it has been also written that the cash amount was paid by these persons. The essential issue which rises in these appeals is two-fold:- Firstly, whether the appellant entered into the transaction of property i.e. he was havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncelled and amount reported in the said agreement was returned back by the sellers to the assessee or purported prospective buyers. Further the final buyer and the initial buyer are related parties and the change appears to be at the convenience of the buyer and not a cancellation of initial deal. During the search proceedings in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act the appellant has clearly explained on his own in the query raised by the officer i.e. the appellant himself has clarified that he had paid an amount of Rs. 21,11,000/- and later on the property was registered in the name of other buyer. The relevant parts are extracted in the assessment order. The appellant has not done effective retraction of this statement and has not proved this statement wrong as the statement itself is an evidence. Further, regarding the legal principles to examine the validity of the retraction of statement, guidance is taken from the following judgements:- 5.6 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) [26-05-2010] "What is evidence? We shall examine it first. Evidence is defined in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would be relevant. Hence we quote the same for easy reference: "Section 132(4): The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act. Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the examination of any person under this sub-section may be not merely in respect of any books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of the search, but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act. Going by the above provision along with its Explanation we find that the statement of the partner and employees recorded and documents collected are relevant and admissible in respect of all matters for the purpose of any investigation connected wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls, either by way of a duly sworn affidavit or statements supported by convincing evidence through which an assessee could demonstrate that the statements initially recorded were under pressure/coercion and factually incorrect. In our view, retraction after a sufficient long gap or point of time, as in the instant case, loses its significance and is an afterthought. Once statements have been recorded on oath, duly signed, it has a great evidentiary value and it is normally presumed that whatever stuted at the time of recording of statements under section 132(4), are true and correct and brings out the correct picture, as by that time the assessee is uninfluenced by external agencies. Thus, whenever an assessee pleads that the statements have been obtained forcefully/by coercion/undue influence without material/contrary to the material, then it should be supported by strong evidence which we have observed hereinbefore. Once a statement is recorded under section 132(4), such a statement can be used as a strong evidence against the assessee in assessing the income, the burden lies on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statements are incorrect/wrong and that burde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r as long as 36 hours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of the appellant department for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details the circumstances which led to surrender and how the surrender was extracted from the assessee from the aforesaid seven papers. The assessee has not brought any evidence on record to prove the facts mentioned by the assessee in the affidavit. The persons whose names were mentioned on the papers seized by the department have also denied any amount having been received by them from the assessee as advance against the sale of the properties/land. Learned counsel argued that the Assessing Officer has not given any reason in the assessment order as to why the explanation given by the assessee in the affidavit was not acceptable. Learned CIT(A) has given detailed reasons in respect of each deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Another, (1973) 91 ITR 0018 (SC) and submitted that the Supr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(4) of the Act and later confirmed in statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the assessee has retracted the same because such retraction ought to have been generally made within reasonable time or by filing complaint to superior authorities or otherwise brought to notice of the higher officials by filing duly sworn affidavit or statement supported by convincing evidence. Such a statement when recorded at two stages cannot be discarded summarily in cryptic manner by observing that the assessee in a belatedly filed affidavit has retracted from his statement. Such retraction is required to be made as soon as possible or immediately after the statement of the assessee was recorded. Duration of time when such retraction is made assumes significance and in the present case retraction has been made by the assessee after almost eight months to be precise, 237 days", CIT, Bikaner vs. Shri Ravi Mathur (D.B. Income-tax Appeal No. 67/2002), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court "Once a statement is recorded u/s 132(4), such a statement can be used as a strong evidence against the assessee in assessing the income, the burden li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal's order is concluded by findings of fact and in our view, no question of law arises. The applications are, accordingly, rejected." (Emphasis supplied) (In the above case the statement was recorded during survey. The above judgement is thus in the context of evidentiary value of statement recorded during survey.) Bachittar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana) "6. It is not disputed that the statement was made by the assessee at the time of survey, which was retracted on May 28, 2003, and he did not take any further action for a period of more than two months. In such circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal that retraction from the earlier statement was not permissible, is definitely a possible view. The mere fact that some entries were made in a diary could not be held to be sufficient and conclusive to hold that the statement carlier made was false. The assessee failed to produce books of account which may have been maintained during regular course of business or any other authentic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income. In the circumstances, the statement of the assessee could certainly be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tary evidence. So, it is just and appropriate to conclude that the concealment was same in all the years during the block period. Adding to that we find that when it is revealed in a search under section 132 of Income-tax Act that the assessee was following a particular method to conceal the income, it is just and reasonable to presume that the same practice was followed by the assessee throughout all the assessment years in the block period for the purpose of block assessment. Of course, the presumption is rebuttable. In such circumstances, it is for the assessee to establish that the same method of concealment was not followed in the earlier assessment years in the block period or that the method of concealment detected was practiced only from a particular period. Here, regarding that, assessee had not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption or to come to a contrary finding. On the other hand, in unambiguous terms, it was stated by the partner of the respondent, who is in-charge of the bar that only 80 per cent of the sales outturn is recorded in the cash books and that is the practice followed from the beginning of the business. In the light of the above statement it is ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he had failed to displace. The assessee retracted from the said statement vide letters dt. 24^th Nov, 1998 and 11th March, 1999 during the course of assessment proceedings. However, no value could be attached thereto in the present case. In case the statement which was made by the assessee at the time of search and seizure was under pressure or due to coercion, the assessee could have retracted from the same at the earliest. No plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier. In such a situation, the authenticity of the statement by virtue of which surrender had been made at the time of search cannot be held to be bad. The Tribunal, thus, erred in concluding otherwise. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in reversing the order of the AO which was affirmed by the CIT(A) also." (Emphasis supplied) Kantilal C. Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Ahmedabad [2011] 14 taxmann.com 108 (Ahmedabad - ITAT)/[2012] 15 ITR(T) 62(Ahmedabad - Headnotes Section 132, read with section 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Sea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)). 5.8 In view of the above discussion the claim of the appellant that he was acting merely a simply broker is not acceptable and the same is not as per records and is near an afterthought and the same is hereby rejected. The appellant was acting in his own capacity as is seen in earlier years also and as is also clarified by the appellant himself in the statement on oath and his interest in the property was more than the interest a broker would have in a property transaction being brokered by him. 5.9 Whether cash payment of Rs. 21,11,000/- was done by the appellant or not? And consequently whether the claim of cash payment by Shri Hari Narayan Jat, Shri Ramgopal Meena and Shri Satyapal Singh is acceptable or not? The moot question arises whether the cash deposit was done by the appellant or the cash was deposited by other individuals. The Appellant himself has stated on oath in his statement that the payment deposit to the seller of property was done by him. Evidentially value of the statement on oath during the search action has been discussed in above paragraphs and the statement of the appellant constitutes an evidence which has not been ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt that cash belonged to him and had filed an application before ITSC for settlement and addition would result in double taxation in hands of assessee and person who claimed ownership of seized cash However, said application was rejected and order under section 153A was passed making addition to assessee's total income under section 69A- It was found that one 'S' had given statement that cash belonged to him for distribution to voters, however, statement of 'S' did not satisfy test of preponderance of probability, as, 'S' had not produced any records to substantiate that cash belonged to him and also, he was a man of insufficient means Further, show cause notice also indicated that 'S' had not filed any income tax returns to justify his version Moreover, documents pertaining to college/trust of assessee found along with seized cash indicated that cash belonged to assessee which was not disclosed by assessee in his regular return Whether therefore, since preponderance of probabilities indicated that seized cash was undisclosed income of assessee, additions under section 69A to assessee's income were justified - Held, yes (Paras 49 to 541 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner. 54. Mere voluntary sworn statement on the same day by Mr. S.Srinivasan claiming that the seized cash were his, is not sufficient. Mr. S.Srinivasan has not shown himself to be a man of substantial means. On the other hand, the fact that the documents pertaining to the College/Trust of the Petitioner were found along with the seized cash as indicated above show that cash belonged to the petitioner which was not disclosed by the petitioner in his regular return." In the above case a third person made a sworn statement and owned up the cash found in the premises of petitioner. Such third person also filed an application before the Settlement Commission. However such sworn statement was rejected by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The matter was decided as per Preponderance of Probability. Some of the factors which weighed in deciding the matter arc as under:- * Such third person did not produce records to substantiate that cash belonged to him * Such third person has not filed Income Tax Return * Such third person has not shown himself to be a man of substantial means. * Such third person has not given any satisfactory ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t however the same is also irrelevant as the addition is on account of availability of the unaccounted/unexplained cash with the appellant and the investment of the same by the appellant in the rights and interests in the property and thus the undisclosed investment of the appellant for which the source of cash payment is unexplained. Accordingly the addition is restricted to Rs. 21,11,000/- which is the cash component as is also linked with replies of the appellant and which is also the amount mentioned by the appellant in the statement on oath. Thus this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 28. On this issue the appeal of the assessee was allowed in part and therefore, the assessee challenges that finding and in support of that ground ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed written submission which reads as under: Ground No. 1 4(i) The first grounds of the appeal is challenging, the addition of Rs. 21,11,000/- has been made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that an agreement for purchase of agricultural land was found and seized. A copy of the relevant part of the said agreement is also pasted / mentioned at page No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ालिक श्री धीरेन्द्र शर्मा को बेच दी तथा जमीन के मालिकों का पूरी राशि उन्ही से दिलाई है। इस सम्बन्ध में यदि कोई सबूत विभाग को चाहिये तो मैं पेश कर दूंगा।" In this connection the appellant submits that the search team has not put any question / asked the source(s) of the said amount Rs. 21,11,000/- paid by the appellant. The sources were asked by the ld. AO and the appellant explained the same. 4(ii) Submissions Ground No. 1 is challenging an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time of execution of agreement to sale, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be paid by cheque and balance Rs. 19,11,000/- in cash. Further, vide 1st and 2nd para at page 3 of the said Agreement it is also mentioned that part of the material agricultural land was let out and a further sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was payable after de-possession of land by the tenant within 2 months time. But the agricultural land owner Shri Nirmal Singh Anand could not fulfill the said terms of the agreement and ultimately the prospective buyer M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt. Ltd. refused to purchase the said land. The submissions of the appellant are that he has not paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by cheque to Shri Nirmal Singh Anand and for verification of the said facts he also submitted a relevant period copy of his bank account before the ld. AO. The appellant before the ld. AO submitted that the entire amount as per agreement was paid in cash by the following persons:- Shri Hari Narain Jat Rs. 10,11,000/- Shri Ram Gopal Meena Rs. 6,00,000/- Shri Satyapal Singh Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 21,11,000/- No payment by cheque was made. 4(iii)(a) In support of the above said fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the legislature. Thus, at the material time there was no requirement for notarization of an affidavit. Further, the second observation of the ld. AO that why the witnesses themselves have not made the Agreement to Purchase in place of the appellant is also irrelevant for the reason that to negotiate and for some other valid reasons a middleman is appointed to finalize the land transaction. Further, as submitted above that one of the witnesses is a buyer of the land. Regarding third observation of the ld. AO of no cancellation of earlier agreement to sale and non refund of advance amount Rs. 21,11,000/-, the appellant submitted that one of the witnesses of the said Agreement is a buyer and other two persons are his real brothers. As such whatever amount paid earlier was adjusted by the land owner in the Purchase/Sale consideration at the time of Registration of the Purchase Deed. Further, the amount originally paid by the middleman Shri Hari Narain Jat, Shri Ram Gopal Meena and Shri Satyapal Singh who were witnesses along with Shri Dhirendra Sharma was settled by them before Registration of the document and the appellant has not paid any sum out of his pocket. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....journment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during proceedings before the ld. AO. Based on this observation ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 32. Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is exactly similar to the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 116/JP/2024. On this matter the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under: "6.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- I have decided the similar issue in the case of the appellant for the assessment year 2013-14 where the addition made by the ld. AO has been upheld. Facts of the present appeal being pari-materia with the facts of the case of assessment year 2013-14 the findings of the appeal order in the case of assessment year 2013-14 will apply mutatis-mutandis to the present appeal for the assessment year 2015-16 and it is held accordingly. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed." 33. As is evident that there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee vide their paper book filed on 22.07.2024 that statement was available with the ld. AO and has not been disputed by the ld. AO through the ld. DR when the matter finally argued by the ld. DR and therefore, we do not find any reason to sustain that amount as income of the assessee. Entry recorded at page 36 is repayment of the same person and therefore, we see no reason to tax that repayment as income of the assessee. For the remaining the three entry two is dated 01.11.2014 for Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-. Where in the assessee in the submission sated that Rs. 25,000/- paid out of the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee vide their paper book filed on 22.07.2024 that statement was available with the ld. AO and has not been disputed by the ld. AO through the ld. DR when the matter finally argued by the ld. DR and therefore, we do not find any reason to sustain that amount as income of the assessee. As regards the another entry of Rs. 50,000/- the bench noted that the assessee claimed that amount out of repayment of Shri Bhanu Pratap as per cash flow statement and therefore, that amount also cannot be considered as income of the assessee. The last entry....