TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee had made two distinctly different transactions with Sh. Yogendra Garg, Shri Ram Enterprises and Jaina Steels, involving matching amounts: the 1st group of three transactions was made through banking channel before 01/04/2016 ; and 2nd group of three transactions was made in cash on 26/07/2016, 25/08/2016 and 27/07/2016 which have not been recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. Also that the addition was based on documents found during the course of survey proceedings in form of Exhibit 4 of Annexure-A(Page-159). 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,49,00,000/- on account of cash loan advances u/s 69A without appreciating the fact that the loans of Rs. 69,00,000/- Rs. 35,00,000/- and Rs. 45,00,000/- as mentioned in aforesaid evidential document against the names of Sh. Yogendra Garg, Shri Ram Enterprises and Jaina Steels are entries different from the loans of Rs. 69,00,000/- Rs. 35,00,000/- and Rs. 45,00,000/- which were advanced before 01/04/2016 through banking channel; and the AO's addition by treating the entries mentioned in the impounded books of docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the amounts mentioned in the impounded paper were already reflected in the regular books of account as advances made through banking channel. The CIT(A) also observed that the impounded paper contained future dates (beyond the date of impounding) and references such as "due date", which indicated that it was only a rough noting for tentative repayment or interest. Importantly, no corroborative evidence was brought on record by the AO, and no inquiries were conducted from the named parties or brokers. Holding that the addition was based merely on suspicion, the ld. CIT(A) directed to delete the addition of principal amount of Rs. 1,49,00,000/- and consequential interest of Rs. 13,41,000/-. 6. Before us both the parties have supported the order of the lower authority as favorable to them. The ld. DR in support of the grounds of appeal submitted that the based on the specific information the survey was conducted at the premises that the assessee is engaged in the business of cash loans. The ld. AO recorded the statement of the assessee wherein the assessee accepted the facts recorded on that paper relied upon by the ld. AO. He also submitted that the assessee group was following a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ising and arbitrary that the same logic has not been applied by the AO to the other three parties namely Shri Yogendra Garg, Shri Ram Enterprises & Jaina Steals, wherein also the facts are exactly the same in as much as book entries of loan given has been found in the books of accounts of assessee himself however the same has been ignored or not considered by the AO. The AO cannot act in his own whims and fancies, treating similar entries as different, especially when the same has been arising out of the same loose paper. D. The case of the AO is that the subjected loose paper shows that cash loan has given to various parties by the assessee on the corresponding date mentioned in the entries. Pertinently the Exhibit-4 Annexure-A & Pg. 159 also contains various entries wherein the corresponding date of alleged loan given is a subsequent date. In other words, on the date of search i.e. 28.07.2016, the subjected loose paper was found from the possession of the assessee wherein various entries of future dates is mentioned, for example the entries w.r.t Shri Ram Enterprises corresponding date mentioned is 25.08.2016, Shri Rajendra Kumar Bardiya the corresponding date mentioned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d over for further period on receipt of interest which has been duly accounted for and TDS reflected thereon. The Revenue has based its conclusion on analyzing two other entries in the same seized paper relating to Pooja Agarwal and Chandra Prakash Agarwal and found that the dates mentioned in the seized paper reflects the date of advancement of loan and which also matches with the respective assessee's books of accounts and thus, other entries in the said seized paper also relates to advancement of loan and not the date of repayment or tentative date of repayment of loan. The assessee has however submitted that the seized papers contains in total 18 entries and where other entries are also analyzed, it would be clear that a general analogy cannot be drawn that all such entries relates to date of advancement of loan rather each entries need to be look into given its peculiarity and specifics of the transaction. Our reference was drawn to entry dated 13.08.2016 relating to Rajendra Kumar Bardiya, entry dated 25.08.2016 relating to Shri Ram Enterprises and entry dated 10.08.2016 relating to Leading Infrastructure and it was submitted that search was conducted on 28.07.2016 and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) order). The above submissions have been made based on the instructions and the information provided of/by the client." 7.1 To support the various contentions raised in the written submission the assessee filed a paper book containing the following evidences in support of the contentions so raised:- S. No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Copy of Income tax return filed dated 29.07.2017 along with computation of total Income 1-4 2. Copy of loose paper seized and inventoried as page no 159 of Annexure A exhibit-4 5 3. Copy of Order dated 27.01.2021 passed by Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sh. Chandra Prakash Agarwal HUF for the AY: 2017- 18. 6-20 4. Copy of reply filed before Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings 21-23 5. Copy of Income tax return filed in response to notice u/s 148 along with computation of total Income 24-27 6. Copy of ledger account of Sh. Yogendra Garg for FY 2016-17 alongwith copy of bank statement for verification of money advanced 28-30 7. Copy of ledger account of Shri Ram Enterprises for FY 2016-17 alongwith copy of bank statement for verification of money advanced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o borrower or broker has been examined, no independent verification has been carried out, and the entire addition rests on suspicion and conjecture. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Chandra Prakash Agarwal HUF vs. DCIT (ITA No. 924/JP/2019, order dated 27.01.2021), where on identical facts and the very same impounded page 159, the addition was deleted holding that the document was only a rough jotting and no separate cash advances were proved. On the parity of reasoning, the ld. AR urged that the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1.49 crores deserve to be confirmed. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. Record reveals that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the premise that the figures appearing in Annexure-A, Exhibit-4, page 159 represent fresh cash advances outside the books. However, we find that the explanation offered by the assessee carries greater conviction. The assessee has filed ledger accounts and bank statements evidencing that the very same amounts of Rs. 69,00,000 Rs. 35,00,000 and Rs. 45,00,000....