SANJAY TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

5. Against this order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 20.05.2022, dismissed Page | 2 the appeal of the assessee. Thus, the present appeal is filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. Grounds of appeal

taken by the assessee are as under-

1. That On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the assessment of the appellant at income of Rs.9,88,03,020/- as against the income of Rs.2,85,18,570/- declared by the appellant.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the addition of Rs.6,81,55,760/-on account of unexplained investments without appreciating the fact that the addition was made on the basis of dumb documents.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,25,000/- on account of interest income against the unexplained investments.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,27,664/- made by the Assessing Officer.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.3,76,026/- on account of unexplained cash.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the said addition arbitrarily rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the appellant.

8. That the provisions of sections 234B and 234C of the Act are not at all applicable.

9. That the impugned appeal order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.

10. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

6.1. Ld.AR further submits that the paper does not speaks about the nature of entry whether they pertained to the receipt of loan or giving the loan and further it is not clear whether the amount stated in last column is interest and further whether such interest is receivable or payable. Ld. AR submits that in terms of the directions given by Hon’ble ITAT in first round of appeal, the assessee during the course of set aside proceedings before the AO, filed complete details and particulars like names and addresses of the persons whose names are appearing in the said loose papers. However, AO asked the assessee to produce them before him for examination without making any direct enquiry at his end. He submits that no effort was made by the AO for issue of summons u/s 133(6)/131 of the Act to these parties directly in order to establish the true nature of transactions recorded in the loose papers. Ld.AR also submits that one of the party Shri Ravi Malhotra who is close relative of the assessee, appeared before the AO and his statements were recorded wherein he categorically denied having any transactions of loan taken or given to the assessee as alleged based on the entry found noted in the said loose papers. It is thus, submitted by Ld.AR that the additions made by AO are merely on conjectures and surmises and without bringing on record any corroborative evidences / material which could lead to the conclusion that the assessee has given loans and advances to the parties whose names are appearing in the said papers out of his unexplained income. He further submits that the action of the Act in holding that the said amounts as investment of assessee is contrary to the explanation given by the assessee during the course of search where it was stated that that these amounts represents proposed loans thus, the AO without any material had changed the nature of entries from loan to be taken to advances given by the assessee and therefore, he requested for the deletion of the additions so made.

8. Ld.AR further placed reliance on the written submissions filed before us which reads as under:- A) “The Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.6,81,55,760/-u/s.69A and interest of Rs. 16,25,500/- on it on the basis of dumb documents. 1. Following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT, the Ld. AO has gone through the procedure of 143(3) of the Act and completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.6,81,55,760/- considering the same as loan/advances by the assessee and Rs. 16,25,500/- as interest income on it. 2. The above additions were made on basis of page 23 & 24 of Annexure-2 of seized documents which were found during the course of search conducted on assessee. Copies of these seized documents are enclosed as page no.10 to 11 of PB.

10. The Ld. AO has made the addition without any investigation and verification of the parties. He has not made any effort to conduct enquiry to establish the allegations against the assessee. He rather stated that "as the figures mentioned in the seized documents represent loan/advances given by the assessee 'in cash' out of his unaccounted income, therefore even on verification, no party would accept its receipt as it will attract penal provision for accepting cash loans in their cases." The statement of the Ld. AO clearly reflects his arbitrary and assuming conclusion with regard to the addition. No addition on the basis of dumb documents: 11. It is pertinent to note that the names written on page 23 & 24 of Annexure-2 of seized documents are nothing but jottings and dumb documents as * It appears that the names were written in a very casual manner against the alleged huge amount of money e.g. 'Jijaji, Nemimama, Guptaji' etc. If really such amounts were taken or given, at least the names would be written properly to avoid any confusion in identity of the parties. * There is no date mentioned in the said seized pages.

* There is no signature of any of the person or the assessee in the said seized pages. * The alleged amount is only mentioned in pages of a paper and it was not found in the possession of assessee in physical form, during the course of survey or search conducted on the assessee. As said above, these are nothing but a rough estimation for collecting funds to purchase a commercial space in an approved commercial location as elaborately mentioned in point no.2 & 3 of the submission. Therefore, the said pages can only be considered as dumb documents.

13. Dumb documents are the documents which do not speak anything independently. These are the documents which are found during the course of search or survey and do not indicate whether the figures mentioned therein refer to anything meaningful or corroborative with the affairs of the assessee. It means which require evidences in its support to derive any conclusion. The assessee has given plausible explanation about it and the Ld. AO has not been able to rebut this explanation by any material evidence. The Ld. AO has neither brought any material on record nor established any nexus between the figures mentioned in the seized pages and the assessee. The Ld. AO has only cooked an imaginary story about the seized pages and derived an arbitrary conclusion. Such assumptions without corroborative evidences are not sustainable. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee relying on the said loose sheet.

15. Assessee wishes to rely on following judgments: a) [Common Cause vs. UOI (Sahara Diaries) (Supreme Court) January 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)] It is further submitted that the issue has been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has observed as under:- The Supreme Court rejected the demand for a probe into bribes allegedly paid to politicians mentioned in the so-called Birla-Sahara diaries, saying it would be dangerous for democracy to order a probe on the basis of loose sheets inadmissible as evidence. Page | 9

"We find the documents seized from Birla and Sahara groups to be random computer entries, diaries, emails and Excel sheets. These are not maintained on a regular basis as books of account," said the bench, virtually putting a stamp of approval on the Income Tax Settlement Commission's recent decision, based on a forensic test, to discard the Sahara diary and documents as constituting evidence. The bench relied heavily on the SC judgment in the V C Shukla case in which it had ruled that diary entries alone cannot be treated as evidence unless corroborated by other independent details. "When we examine this with the findings in the V C Shukla case, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out against anyone to warrant directing investigation against any person," it said. "We are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, no case is made out to direct investigation against political personalities, officers and others," the bench said and dismissed the application filed by Common Cause through Bhushan seeking an independent Supreme Court monitored investigation into the Birla-Sahara diaries. b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBI v V.C. Shukla & Others, 1988 mostly known as JAIN DAIRY HAWALA case where Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the prosecution's claim justifying counsel for the appellant's contention that the entries in the diary maintained by Jain Brothers were inadmissible and a bundle of sheets/papers which are detachable and replaceable at a moments notice, can hardly be characterized as ground of evidence of some books of accounts. CBI v Shukla [VC] (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC)]. c) Addition was deleted by the CIT(A) on this basis that the loose- papers on the basis of which the addition are made by the AO are without any particulars or date or name etc. and, therefore, these are dump-papers and cannot be made the basis for addition. This finding of the CIT(A) could not be controverted by the DR of the Revenue by bringing any evidence on record to show that this essential information such as date, name or particulars are available on the seized paper on the basis of which the addition was made by the AO and, hence, on this issue also, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KAWARJEETSINGH P. CHHABDA (2013) 37 CCH 0368 AhdTrib] That leaves the Court with the addition initially made by the AO for the sum of Rs.3.64 crores. Here too the addition was made only on the basis of some loose papers and a chit. This too would fall in the same category of material which could not have been the sole basis for addition without some surveillance of the substantiation. Consequently, the ITAT's reasoning cannot be faulted. (para 15). d) Addition made on the basis of undated and unsigned document seized during search is not sustainable COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- XIV vs. VIVEKAGGARWAL (2015) 121 DTR 0241 (Del) Page | 10 e) In the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court has held as under:- "That the revenue has to prove the undisclosed income beyond doubt. Further it was held that the document should be a speaking one and it should contain narration in respect of various figures noted therein. Otherwise the same should be considered as dumb document on which reliance could not be placed upon." f) It is a matter of experience that in the course of survey & search, large number of loose papers are found and seized by the Department. The assessee is required to explain as to the nature and contents of each and every paper particularly giving reference to the presumption available against the assessee. Many times such loose papers contain nothings, scribbling or rough estimates which may not mean anything. The assessing officer sometimes ventures into decoding, extrapolating and estimating income based upon surmises and conjectures. The courts have held that no addition can be made on the basis of dumb documents. The presumption is that the document belongs to the assessee and its contents are correct. The presumption cannot be extended to mean that whatever figure mentioned in the loose paper found from the possession of assessee, represent his income. No decoding is permissible on suspicion, surmise, conjecture and imagination. Amar Natvarlal Shah v. Asstt.CIT (1997] 60 ITD 560 (Ahd) g) Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. vs Acit, I.Τ.Α. No. 1539/DEL/2015, 08.11.2017: 40. Turning to the case on hand, the document recovered from the file in the computer of Mr. Awasthi, forms the basis of the addition made by the AO, which was further reduced by the CIT (A). This was in the form of a computer print out of three sheets which were unsigned and undated. The first sheet was titled 'Cash-in-flow detail for the revenue', the next was titled 'Revenue details' and the third was titled 'Vatika Triangle, Guargaon.' The notes to the documents are indicative of their being projections. Noting (i) states that "it is presumed that the building will be completed and fully let out in the month of November 2002." Another note states "Further, the sale of the building will took place over a period of nine months." Admittedly, as on the date of the search the construction was still in progress. Flats up to the fourth floor had been sold. The view taken by the ITAT that mere fact that the print out states that the flats on second and third floor have been sold, does not necessarily mean that they were sold at the rates indicated therein is definitely a plausible view to take.

45. As pointed out in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.M Aggarwal (supra) the said document can at best be termed as a 'dumb' document which in the absence of independent corroboration could not possibly have been relied upon as a substantive piece of evidence to determine the actual rates at which the flats were sold. Further as pointed out in Commissioner of Income Tax v. D.K. Gupta (supra) merely because there are notings of figures on slips of paper, it did not mean that those transactions actually took place. Likewise in Commissioner of Income tax vs Girish Chaudhary (supra), the Court termed a loose sheet containing some notings of figures as a 'dumb document' since there was no material to show as to on what basis the AO had reached a conclusion that the figure '48' occurring in one of them was to be read as Rs. 48 lakhs.

46. In the present case, there was again no material on the basis of which the AO could have applied a standard rate of Rs 4,800 per sq ft for all the floors of VT. It was also not open to the AO to draw an inference on the basis of the projection in the document, particularly when the Assessee offered a plausible explanation for the document. The burden shifted to the Revenue to show, on the basis of some reliable and tangible material, how rate at which the flats on the second and third floors of VT was higher than that dictated in the sales register or the sale deeds themselves.

47. In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the ITAT was justified in coming to the conclusion that the addition of Rs. 5,60,73,380 made by the CIT (A) was not sustainable in law. Addition u/s.69A is not tenable: 16. Section 69A of the Act invokes when 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. In this case, the assessee was found in the possession of loose sheets and not in physical possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. Therefore the above additions u/s. 69A is not tenable. In this regard assessee wishes to rely on the following judgments: In P & H HC in 294 ITR 78, the assessee was found to be in possession of loose slips and not any valuable article or things. Neither the possession nor the ownership of any jewelry mentioned in the slips was proved. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly held that the provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable. The Tribunal also held that if the assessee failed to explain the contents of the slips, it was for the Revenue to prove on the basis of material on record that they represented transactions of sales or stock in trade before making any addition on this score. The assessee had duly explained that these were rough calculations and the assessee's explanation had not been rebutted by any material evidence. DCIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Karthik Construction Co., ITA no.2292/Mum./2016, order dated 23 February, 2018: ".......the only thing which requires to be examined in the present appeal is whether the addition made under section 69A of the Act can be sustained. A reading of section 69A of the Act makes it clear, Page | 12 addition can only be made when the assessee is found to be in possession of money bullion jewellery, etc., not recorded in his books of account. It is not the case of the Department that the loan repayment made during the year was either not recorded in the books of account or the source of fund utilised in repaying the loan is doubtful. That being the case, the addition under section 69A of the Act cannot be made. Therefore, the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has to be sustained."

17. It is pertinent to note that presumption u/s.292C is not a significant matter in the case of the assessee. The assessee has not denied the fact that both the seized pages are not belong to him. He has also has admitted that he has written the figures in the pages however, these are only imaginary figures as he was planning to collect funds from these parties to purchase a property in an approved commercial area. Hence, there is no requirement to emphasis on implication of section 292C of the Act in the case of the assessee.

18. With regard to addition of interest income of Rs. 16,25,000/-, it is submitted that the assessee has denied any transactions written on the seized pages. The assessee has already given plausible explanation on it. Further, the unnatural rate of interest with regard to alleged interest income also does not support the assumption or suspicion of Ld. AO. Since, the original amount of Rs.6,81,55,760/- is not sustainable therefore, the addition on account of interest income on the same amount is also not sustainable. Hence, such addition should be deleted. It is explicit from the above discussion that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are on conjectures-surmises, probabilities, guess work without bringing on record any corroborative evidence or material on record to justify the same. Therefore, the above additions deserve to be deleted. Prayer In view of the above submissions it is explicit that the addition made by the Ld. AO is perverse and invalid and based on irrelevant reason. Therefore, it is prayed that the additions may kindly be deleted and the appeal of the appellant be allowed.”

12. Since beginning of proceedings, assessee was stating that these are rough papers thus the entries contained therein deserves to be ignored. The assessee in his statements recorded on 21.04.2010 u/s 131 of the Act before the ADIT clearly stated that these are rough noting recorded for the purpose of obtaining loans from the persons whose names are written therein. However, due to higher interest burden, assessee dropped the idea. Since no amount was borrowed nor any corroborative evidence was found as a result of search or brought on record during post search / assessment proceedings nor any cash to this extent was found thus, these entries cannot be made sole basis for making such a huge addition. The claim of the assessee that in first round before the ld. CIT(A), assessee had explained the nature of the entries noted in these seized papers and a remand report was also obtained by the ld. CIT(A) and after considering the explanation given by the assessee and the facts stated in the remand report, deleted the addition. However, the Hon’ble ITAT has set aside the matter to the file of AO for making verification of the entries.

14. It is a matter of common knowledge that a normal man always afraid of Income Tax department and avoid appearing before any Income Tax Authority. Due to this fact, none of the other person had appeared before the AO on the request of the assessee. Surprisingly, the AO despite having power to issue summons u/s 131 or 133(6) of the Act, choose not to issue the same and insisted the assessee to produce all these persons before him for examination. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Orrisa Corporation reported in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) held that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the Revenue's case and in order to sustain the addition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere non-compliance of summons issued by the Assessing Officer under section 131, by the alleged creditors will not be sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee.

15. Further while making the addition the AO himself was not sure whether he is making addition on account of loans given or advance taken or for the payments made or received and has played blow hot and blow cold. The assessee in his preliminary statements stated that these entries represent the list of possible parties from Page | 18 whom loans could be taken in future which were never taken due to high interest cost however, the addition is made treating them as loans given by the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and interest thereon as unexplained income of the assessee. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High court in the case CIT vs Ravi Kumar reported in 294 ITR 78, on the application of provisions of section 69A of the Act has held that “the assessee was found to be in possession of loose slips and not any valuable article or things. Neither the possession nor the ownership of any jewelry mentioned in the slips was proved. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly held that the provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable. The Tribunal also held that if the assessee failed to explain the contents of the slips, it was for the Revenue to prove on the basis of material on record that they represented transactions of sales or stock in trade before making any addition on this score. The assessee had duly explained that these were rough calculations and the assessee's explanation had not been rebutted by any material evidence.”

16. It is settled law that while working out the addition, the papers should be read in the manner it is written. If the entries are treated as loans taken then the amounts alleged as interest is payment out of undisclosed sources for which provision of section 69A of the Act cannot be invoked. If these amounts are treated as loans given, the interest is to be treated as undisclosed income and loans should be held as given out of undisclosed sources. However, both the principal and interest cannot treated as undisclosed money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act as has been done in the instant case. From the perusal of these seized two pages, it appears that these papers neither reflects whether the amounts mentioned are receipts or payments and these are the simple memoranda entries made by assessee without having any financial implication. It appears that the entire addition is made on incorrect and improper appreciation of facts and merely on assumption and presumption without having any corroborative material brought on record, more particularly when the AO has not appreciated the statements of the assessee in its true spirit. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary reported in (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) has held as under:- "That the revenue has to prove the undisclosed income beyond doubt. Further it was held that the document should be a speaking one and it should contain narration in respect of various figures noted therein. Otherwise the same should be considered as dumb document on which reliance could not be placed upon."

17. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that the AO observed interest @ 2% and 3% is paid on such loans which was never be the prevailing market rate of interest either for borrowing or for funds invested. Further if we calculate the percentage of each individual entry in some cases it would be as high as more than 100% which is an impossibility. In the statement of Smt. Sharda Taneja, wife of the assessee recorded at the time of search, she stated that these loans were taken for purchasing the property for their company M/s Taneja Complete Home Solutions Pvt. Ltd. However, the said company was incorporated on 06.03.2010 and the property for which the proposed loans were stated to have been taken, was purchased by the assessee on 14.07.2009 that too for a sum of Rs. 35.00 lakhs only and the DVO has valued the same at Rs. 1,09,40,700/-. If for argument sake, it is presumed that the loans as stated in the seized papers were taken to acquire such property than in such case, the maximum requirement of funds would be of 1.10 crores and not of 6.81 crores as were found noted in the said paper. This aspect is totally ignored by the lower authorities. In this regard the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. vs ACIT in I.Τ.Α. No. 1539/DEL/2015 dated 08.11.2017 under identical circumstances where the addition was made on the basis of loose papers containing the projection while deleting the additions has held as under: 40. Turning to the case on hand, the document recovered from the file in the computer of Mr. Awasthi, forms the basis of the addition made by the AO, which was further reduced by the CIT (A). This was in the form of a computer print out of three sheets which were unsigned and undated. The first sheet was titled 'Cash-in-flow detail for the revenue', the next was titled 'Revenue details' and the third was titled 'Vatika Triangle, Guargaon.' The notes to the documents are indicative of their being projections. Noting (i) states that "it is presumed that the building will be completed and fully let out in the month of November 2002." Another note states "Further, the sale of the building will took place over a period of nine months." Admittedly, as on the date of the search the construction was still in progress. Flats up to the fourth floor had been sold. The view taken by the ITAT that mere fact that the print out states that the flats on second and third floor have been sold, does not necessarily mean that they were sold at the rates indicated therein is definitely a plausible view to take.

18. It is thus, appears that the scribbling as found noted in the seized pages does not speak about the true nature whether they were in respect of receipt of money or payment of money nor was any effort made by the AO though he had all the whereabouts of the persons whose names are written therein. It appears that the AO was bent upon to make the addition of this amount by any means without bringing any corroborative evidence on record to hold that the amounts noted against these 13 persons is the unexplained money of the assessee. More particularly, when one person, namely Shri Ravi Malhotra, whose identity was written as “Jijaji” in the seized papers had appeared and denied any such transaction. It is also seen that no action is taken in the hands of any of the person whose name is written in the said seized papers even though their particulars were available with the AO. The entire addition is based on the suspicion and surmises.

19. In view of these facts, we are left with no option but to delete this entire addition which has been found to have been made based on no corroborative material and based on dumb documents.

“In Dhekeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Arnbica Ram V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), it has clearly been held by the apex court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof for the purpose of passing an order of assessment.”

14. Now let us examine these components in detail and how they are relevant for taxing an item.

the body of a person, does not automatically lead to the inference that it belonged to him. It is only for certain purposes that presumption under Section 132 (4A) has been enacted and not for all purposes including the assessment. Further this presumption is not conclusive. It is rebuttable. If the assessee has by way of affidavit denied ownership of the document and further Smt. Nirmal Kanta, wife of Sri Dharamvir Wassan admitted that it belonged to her husband, it could not be inferred without rebutting those evidences (filed in the form of affidavits before the AO) that document and transactions recorded therein, in fact, belonged to Sri Satyapal Wassan. Onus under Section 132(4A) is always shifting. This sub-section provides that Section 132 (4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed. (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped , executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested. Thus the Legislature has used the words "may presume". A presumption is an inference drawn from other known or proved facts. It is a rule of law under which courts are authorized to draw a particular inference from certain set of facts. This can be disproved by other evidence provided by other party. The words "may presume" leave it to the court to make or not to make the presumption according to the circumstances of the case. Such presumption is optional and the court is not bound to make it. Even if such presumption is made, it is only rebuttable one. A rebuttable presumption is, thus, clearly a rule of evidence which has the effect of shifting the burden of proof by leading the evidence. Initially the AO would be justified to make such presumption, if drawn after judicial application of mind to the fact of the case. Thereafter, when the assessee leads the evidence, then theAO has to consider it judicially. What amount of evidence one requires to rebut the evidence depends upon facts of each case. There is no rigid rule in this behalf. Sometimes, mere statement of the assessee may be enough.

Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT v. Thahrayamal Balchan,d 124 ITR 111 (Raj.) observed as under: The evidence which satisfied the Tribunal was the facts and circumstances of the case. As pointed out above what quantum of evidence would rebut a legal presumption in a given set of facts does not admit of any rigid rule. The evidence may be direct or circumstantial or both and a mere statement of the assessee may be enough in some cases. It does not raise a question of law The assesses filed his affidavit and also the affidavit of Smt. Nirmala Kanta Wassan wife of Dharamveer Wassan to the effect that impugned document contained transaction belonging to Shri Dhaamvir Wassan. It could not be said that onus did not shift to the AO. In our considered view, the affidavits, even if regarded as self-serving do not lose their evidentiary value if there is no material contrary to the averments made in the affidavit. When sufficient other material is found in the search which corroborates hat document belonged to the assessee, then denial of such ownership merely by affidavits will be meaningless and they do not carry any weight to rebut the presumption lying on the assessee. In the present case, nothing is shown by the AO that there was other material correlated with the impugned document clearly showing that it belonged to the assessee. Under these circumstances, the assessee has successfully shifted the onus on to the AO by filing the affidavits. They may be self- serving but carry enough weight to shift the burden or rebut the presumption. Once the onus is shifted to the AO, he was dutyboud to collect evidence so as to belie the contents of the affidavit and hold that document and transactions recorded therein, in fact, belonged to Satyapal Wassan. If the AO has not done so, it could not be said that the second component of levy of charge has been properly established by him.

27. With regard to Ground No.5 taken by the assessee with respect to the addition of INR 1,27,664/-. It is seen that this addition was challenged by the assessee in first round of appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who vide its order dated 15.09.2014, has confirmed the disallowance in terms of para 17 of the very same order. This Page | 29 fact is also observed by AO in the present order passed u/s 254/143(3) in para 2. Further, the assessee has not challenged the order of Ld.CIT(A) and accepted such disallowance. Therefore, we find no occasion to challenge this disallowance before us in the present appeal accordingly, Ground No.5 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

28. Ground No.6 raised by the assessee is in relation to addition of INR 3,76,026/- made on account of unexplained cash. From the perusal of the order of Ld.CIT(A) dated 15.09.2014 wherein while deciding the appeal of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the said addition in terms of para 12 of the said order and in the present impugned order, this fact is observed by the AO in para 2 of the order. Accordingly, we find no occasion to challenge this addition before us in the present appeal. Hence, Ground No.6 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

29. Ground No.7 is general in nature, requires no adjudication hence, dismissed.

30. Ground No.8 is with respect to the levy of interest which is mandatory and consequential. Thus, AO is directed to charge levy of interest in terms of income computed after providing the fact to the order of the Tribunal.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.07.2025.