DCIT CC 5(1) MUMBAI, BKC vs. NALIN JAGDISHKUMAR GUPTA, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (F" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& HON BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PURUSETH,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2674 Mum[2025 (Assessment_Year: 2023-24) DCIT CC 5 (1), Mumbai KautilyaBhavan, BKC Mumbai 400051 Vs. NalinJagdishkumar Gupta Andheri Veera Desai Road Mumbai 400053 PAN / GIR No. AAEPG9920B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Revenue by Dr K Shivram Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DRL Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.04.2026 3123 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN JM; The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated18.02.2025 passed u/ s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act ) , by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, CIT(A) 53, Mumbai for the assessment year 2023-24. The following grounds as raised by the Revenue are reproduced below: 81 . Whether on the facts and circumstances 0f the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) erred in providing relief on the 2 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 issue of unexplained money on account of Gold Bullion seized during the search by deleting the addition of Rs_ 22,08,62,400/-(Value of Gold Bullion seized from the premises of the assessee), on protective basis by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer. 2 The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 2_ As per the facts of the present case Assessee is the Director of M/ s J Kumar Infrastructurc Project Limited engaged in the business of infrastructure development like roads, flyovers, etc. for the hearing under consideration, the Assessee had filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs . 8,40,43,000 / -. A search action had taken place on various premises of J Kumar group on 11.10.2022 and subsequently assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act thereby making addition u/s 69(A) of the Income Tax Act. 3 Aggrieved by the said order, Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT (Appeal) and Ld. CIT (Appeal) while deleting the additions, partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the said order Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before us on the ground mentioned hereinabove. 4 _ The solitary grounds raised by the Revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) in providing relief to the Assessee on the issue of unexplained money on 3 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 bullion seized during the search by deleting account of gold the additionson protective basis. the counsels for both parties, perused the 5 We have heard record, the judgments cited before US, and the material placed on Authorities: From the records, we order passed by the Revenue thesubstantive additions have already been made noticed that Infra Projects Limited in ITA no. in the hands of J Kumar 2137/Mum/2025. the facts of the present case there is no dispute with 6_ As per the gold seized, which admittedly to the ownership of regard i.e_ M/s J Kumar Infra Projects Limited belongs to the company the said company had categorically confirmed the and even in view of the undisputed ownership of the gold, therefore, had rightly concluded that the protective facts Ld. CIT(A) of the Assessee is wholly addition made in the hands unjustified and thus deleted the same. of Ld. CIT (Appeal) is contended 7 _ The operative portion 24 to 36 of its order which are at para no 4.13 at page no_ produced herein under; 4.13 Decision for Ground no. 1 the case. Ao has made considered the facts of 1 have the hand of J. Kumar Infraprojects substantive addition in deleted the said addition in Limited for A.Y. 2023-24, [ have View of the following finding: "8.28 DECISION for Ground No. 5: ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 u/ s 69A being Gold is regarding addition 8.28.1 The issue different persons covered bullion weighing 57.7 kg found fron the same to be of the Act who have stated u/ s 132 of the also agreed that the same herein The appellant appellant recorded in the books belong to it and stated that the sameris years and shown under the of accounts purchased in earlier that the bills It is also undisputed head 'Plant & Machinery appellant and 'purchase of the same were producedhannee The value of fovingchade %he Payment by banking fkanaele the appellant is Rs_ in the books of such purchase who have 28,42,74,404/ - The AO also examined the Beesonsalc the suppliers duly the same gold and supplied necessary records for the the sale and produced confirmed while disbelieving the purchase as called for. The Ao same the same as per para 4 of have ascribed various reasons for order. During the course of 34-35 of the impugned page no_ various oral and written the appellant has made hearing, The addition of Rs_ which are considered. submissions gold bullion seized during being the value of 30,37,01,400/ the date of seizure is course of search and valued on the imperative to note 694 of the act. It is therefore, made u/ s section which read as under. the provision of said the assessee is found to be 69A. Where in any financial year or other valuable the owner of any money, builion jeveeleeryoorvalhableaarticle such money, bullion, jewellery article and maintained by recorded in the books of account if ange is not and the assessee offers no source of income, him for any and source of acquisition of the explanation about the nature valuable article, or the bullion, jewellery or other money, in the opinion of the offered by him is not, explanation money and the value of Assessing] Officer, the saisfaceoryaluable article may be deemed the bullion, jewellery or other_ such financial year: to be the income of the assessee for be seen that when an the above provision, it can Reading bullion etc_ and assessee is found to be owner % angokonel: accouts, of he is not recorded in books if the same is acquisition of the same. to offer for supposed expsareciodedc in the books of account, if Once the money etc: is of income, the by him for any source any, maintained However, the AO herein S 69A will not apply. provision of that the gold found is have made the addition for the reason purchased or the gold is not the same as is shown as either same furnished is for gold and the bills for the purchased part of business promotion of expenses already consumed as 5 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 the gold found is not the same as remaining in and hence accounts and hence the gold found remains books of [ therefore proceed to examine the various unexplained. given by the Ao in para 4 on pages 34-35 of the reasons impugned order and explanation of the appellant herein. The AC mention that the appellant and promoters of a. appellant are engaged in unaccounted cash purchase %f gold the basis of cash diary found from Mr . Jagdish Gupta on of Rs_ 491.50 lacs to Mr Suresh which records payment Poddar on 24/07/2021 which was considered as purchase of 7 kg of Gold on 27/ 07/2021.and 3 Kg of gold on 28/07/2021 of gold bars sent by Mr. Suresh Poddar to as per images Jagdish Gupta through whatsapp chat and one of the images sent is of the 1 Kg: gold found during search: the contention of the appellant that the noting in the b It is diary are duly explained in the assessment proceedings %f AY 2022-23 as also appellate proceedings and it is explained that noting in the name of Shri Suresh Poddar in the diary is any business/ investment transaction but the not related to of Suresh Poddar is noted since the cash belonging to name is sent from residence to office via Shri Suresh the company Poddar and vice versa as noting is also found on the receipt side of the diary in the name of Suresh Poddar (which the AO conveniently ignored noting on page 11 of diary of has 1.64 crores) The above addition was made in amount of Rs the hands of Mr. Jagdish Gupta which is challenged by him in appeal and appeal is already decided in favor of Mr: Jagdish Gupta. I find that the transaction noted in the diary found during C. to Mr . Jagdish Gupta does not course of search pertaining reveal that the same is towards purchase of gold. Neither Mr. Gupta nor Mr . Suresh Poddar has stated to be for Jagdish purchase of gold bars_ It is the imagination of the AO that the noting in the diary is by the appellant for the purchase of gold bars, It is different thing that one of the images of 1 kg bar sent by Mr . Suresh Poddar is of gold found during gold but rest of the images are not tallying with the gold search found_ Thus on the basis of 1 image of 1 kg gold, it cannot be that 10 Kg; of gold is purchased in cash out of presumed Thus based on such imagination or unaccounted money: presumption, it cannot be said that the appellant is engaged in purchase of gold by paying cash out of unaccounted money_ ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 is that the appellant has 8.28.2 The next allegation across various heads like gold and manipulated Piachasedachiaery or 'Business Promotion expenses etc. but 'Plant & business promotion expenses and the gold purchased for during search It is based on claimed as such is found gold to M/ s Nakodaji Gold on payment for 2 Kg of through Whatsapp chat by Mr 16/06/2020 and images sent where the image shown Suresh Poddar to Mr . Jagdish Gupta bar Which is found during course of search: Thus of 1 kg gold of gold found as accounted as the explanation of purchase Plant & Machinery is not correct_ b The contention of the appellant is that while purchasing the the bills for the same are gold for whatever purposes, reconciled as per reconciliation and are duly grocemeat filed 'hichdulyepeoduced by the AO on page 10 of statement order. The suppliers of gold do not mention the the impugned Mr Suresh Poddar is not dealing in gold bar no in the bills. the purchase as he is old family gold but aonly facilitates diamond jewellery to the family. Since he friend and has sold gold market, he sends is situated near Zaveri Bazar which is photo of gold bars after checking genuineness quotation and But it cannot be said that the images and purity of the same. and delivered and gold bar is sent are of actual purchased given randomly from stock available. gold I find that there is nothing on record that the purchasa ef 16.06.2020 is the same gold aS per whatsapp images sent on 17.06.2020. Neither Mr . Suresh by Mr Suresh Poddar on have stated that the purchase of gold Poddar nor the supplier 16.06.2020 from Nakodaji Gold is same as images sent on on it cannot be said that the gold as per 17.06.2020. Hence 17.06.2020 is same as purchased. on image sent on in possession though it is 16.06.2020 and is remaining as business expenses on 16.06.2020 claimed The next reason for making addition is that during 8.28.3 a _ Mr. Nalin Gupta & the course of search Mr . Jagdish Gupta, Kamal Gupta and post search proceedings the appellant could the gold was kept at home/ locker of not explain as to why promotelfanily and not at corporate office of the appellant: that the 42 Kg_ of gold b The contention of the appellant is Sumitra Ragrahia, mother was found from residence of Mrs: (MD of appeilant) and 15.7 kg of in-law of Mr . Nalin Gupta bank locker of Mrs_ Kusum Gupta and gold was found from ITA No. 2674/Mum/2025 the course of search it was explained Nalin Gupta: During Mr. NalinGupia M.D. was under that since the residence of renovation, the jewellery was kept at residence of his mother- his wife Shalini Gupta. During in-law and jointly owned by search itself a well as during assessment the course of up the gold and submitted proceedings, the appellant owned that it is recorded in books of accounts under the head 'Plant & Machinery to be examined is addition u/ s 69A of the act. C The issue angle of S, 69A, what is When the issue to be seen from place it is kept but the same is whether relevant is not the accounts maintained or not and the recorded in books of is explained or not The value of gold source of the same which by any standard is not bullion is almost 28 crores to keep it safely: Therefore, if small compelling the appellant thinks it fit to keep it at the residence of the management who are at the helm of affairs, the promoters and directors questioned by the AO. It is also seen that decision cannot be 5,15,77,200/ - found during search from directors cash of Rs or senior employees of the appellant was and their relatives during the course of assessment seized. However, the appellant owned up the same as kept for proceedings, business purposes of the appellant The safe keeping or for claim of the appellant that cash of Rs_ Ao accepted the appellant herein and since the 4,50,77,200/ - is that of the on hand much above the appellant is in possession of cash was treated as explained. The cash cash found, the same also include that found from the considered as explained their relatives and senior management team of the Directors, Why the same yardstick is not accepted appellant company: gold found when the explanation for both here in respect of is same_ The value of gold found is much larger the assets comparing to cash found. If cash can be kept for sake keeping directors premises, it is all the more reason that the at the gold bars Will be kept for safe keeping at the premises of the The appellant is a listed entity directors and their relatives. also answerable to its numerous shareholders for safe and merely because the bullion is keeping its assets_ Therefore, at the residence/ locker of directors, the same cannot be kept unexplained S0 as to make addition w/ s 69A of considered as the act. next reason given is that invoices for gold 8.28.4. a. The have bearing Gold Bar making and hence purchased do not 8 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 the books of the appellant cannot be the gold purchased in treated as same: gold bars purchased does b The appellant contended that the nos as confirmed by the suppliers not contain details of or Ao himself. The suppliers also who were examined by the confirmed of having sold bullion to the 'appellant and having channels. If the market through banking peceited oahe euppliersgl hav to mention the details of Gold practice of the invoice raised, the appellant cannot be Bar marking in said to have not explained the same. C The AO in para 1.2.9 of the impugned order notedfthat the gold bar were examined u/ s 131(1A) of the act of supplieeir - were recorded. He noted the facts and statements of such examination where they categorically emerging put supplied gold to the appellant, they admitted that they have marking gold bars which are imported by also sell foreign they do not distinguish between imported their suppliers and They also confirmed that gold bars gold and Indian gold bars_ in the bills raised which was a market nos are not mentioned market but the supply was confirmed as practice in bullion been received for the same. The also the payment having is source of purchase and not marking issue to be examined and mentioning on the bills. Once the suppliers of the same have confirmed the supply and there is no contrary evidence, the same cannot be doubted by these reasons ascribed is that in light of 8.28.5 a. The next reason Mr . Jagdishgupta and Mr . Suresh chats between Poaasapg of gold in cash, the bullion which show purchase those found cannot be considered as same purchased and and hence the gold found remain unexplained. appellant is that there is no purchase b The contention 0f the This fact is confirmed by the suppliers. The of gold in cash: Mr . JagdishGupla and Mr . Suresh chat between Poaasapg not for purchase of gold but it is presumed S0 by is there is no evidence for the same. The the Ao even though additioneise made in the hands of Mr;Jagdish Gupta in earlier CIT(A) and the addition is years has already adjudicated by deleted. the issue of purchase of gold bars in C. [ have considered For the reasons stated therein, I have cash in earlier paras. hold that there is no purchase of gold by the no hesitation to ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 between Mr . Jagdish in cash. The whatsapp chat Gpedaana Suresh Poddar is not for purchase of gold bul Gupta Mr . bars available at a particular mere sending images of gold the one on which the appellant date which is different than Hence on this ground, the have actually purchased the gold. in books as different from AD cannot treat the Gold disclosed gold found during search: by the AO is that The next reason ascribed 8.28.6.a. the head 'Plant & Machinery" recording of gold under 'Furniture and Fixtures is a way of 'Business Promotion' and hence the gold found is to be manipulation of accounts and treated as unexplained. appellant is that the gold found and b The contention of the the 57.700 kg of gold is recorded under seized, particularly The same is different than the the head 'Plant & Machinery. Promotion and 'Furniture and gold purchased for 'Business bills for such purchases: Fixtures and there are different found is recorded under the head Since the purchase of gold stands explained, the addition u/ s 'Plant & Machinery and 69A is not sustainable. submissions. The issue here is [ have considered the C which is explained a..d is duly explanation of gold bars found making payment through recorded in books of accounts by same is recorded under if the any banking channels: Even unexplained: However, the head will not make the same as gold found which is 57.70 kgs is only of the issdeouesertlyhe snc % dely explained as also recorded in and source of head Plant & Machinery and is books of accounts under the other account. The same was not transferred from any 2020-2 1 and 2021-22 which purchased during the F.Y. A.Y. 2021-22 and 2022-23. The same was accepted pertain to at appropriate place is G8 suoh The debit of expenses original purchase was Jor uiffetent and since purpose thand actually spena for a journal entry is reyuired purpose instance given pertain to A,Y. which is not unusual. The under appeal: In A _ Y 2022-23 2022-23 and not for the yeai adverse view was taken_ It is also a it was accepted and no or absence thereof does not determine settled low that entry Similarly head under which the same is income-tax lability. that the asset found is recorded also does not prove the gold found cannot be unexplained: Thus on such ground, treated as unexplained. 10 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 8.28,7.a. The next reasons given is that when other evidence of gold purchased in cash and gold recorded in books is different from gold seized are available, the absence of gold bar serial number on invoices does not prove that gold seized is same as recorded in books and hence the gold found is to be treated as unexplained. b The contention of the appellant is that there is no evidence of gold purchased in cash and gold recorded in books is not different than found, the addition is not sustainable. C. The reason for holding that the appellant is purchasing gold in cash is dealt by me above while deciding first reason for holding SO_ Similarly, the issue whether the gold found is different than that recorded in books is also dealt be me above in reason given in para 8.28.4 and 8.28.5 and hence it will be same reason for holding that since the gold found is same as recorded in books of accounts, the same stands explained and hence addition u/ s 69A is not sustainable. 8.28.8 a . The next reasons given is that due to evidence of WhatsApp chat of Mr. Jagdish Gupta with Mr . Suresh Poddar and recording of gold transaction in unaccounted transaction diary maintained by Mr . Jagdish Gupta strengthen the fact that gold has been purchased using cash and hence the gold recorded in books of accounts is to be treated as not accounted. b_ The contention of the appellant is that there is no purchase of gold in cash: The diary of Mr . Jagdish Gupta does not prove purchase of gold. On the contrary evidence in the form of gold from other buyers who were examined by the Ao during assessment also prove that the gold found is same as purchased from them and duly recorded in books of accounts prove beyond any doubt that the gold found is same as recorded in books C The issue as to whether the appellant purchases gold in cash is dealt by me above, the diary maintained by Mr_ Jagdish Gupta is not for transaction of purchase of gold from Mr . Suresh Poddar. For the gold found and seized, there is complete tally of the same by way of entry in books and recording under the head Plant & Machinery in earlier year. No excess gold is found except as recorded in books of accounts The suppliers do not mention the gold bar no in the bill and the same is only presumed by the AO that particular 11 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 gold purchased should be treated as consumed. However, the presumption does not survive in view of the evidence flied: There is no evidence that the entry in the diary of Mr. Jagdish Gupta against the name of Mr. Suresh Poddar is for purchase of gold in cash. Thus there being no evidence in form of purchase of gold in cash and no effect of WhatsApp chat f Mr . Jagdish Gupta with Mr . Suresh Poddar, the gold found and seized being duly recorded in books of accounts cannot be considered as unexplained 8.28.9 a. Other reasons given in para (ix), (x), (xi) and (xii) by the AD on page 34 and 35 in the assessment order are just for not believing explanation of the appellant furnished during the course of assessment proceedings regarding purchase of gold in cash, explanation about transaction with Mr . Suresh Poddar for purchase of jewelry and not gold, discarding statement of suppliers of gold and the premises of keeping of gold being residences of promoter/ directors being suspicious the addition is made. b The explanation of the appellant is duly recorded above and is repetition of explanation given. C The issue as to whether the appellant is into practice of purchasing gold in cash is dealt by me above. Also the explanation of WhatsApp chat between Mr . Suresh Poddar and Mr . Jagdish Gupta is also dealt by me above. The evidentiary value of suppliers of gold cannot be discarded particularly when they were examined by the AO by recording their state.nent wherein they have admitted of sale of gold to the appellant and receiving payment thereof. The suppliers categorically stated that as per their market practice; they do not mention gold bar no in the bill and there being no contrary evidence, the gold found is to be treated as explained. The keeping of gold for safety purposes with none other than the directors who are at the helm of affairs of the company cannot be doubted S0 as to hold that the gold found is different than the gold recorded in books of accounts_ 8.28.1 0 find from the impugned order that the Ao has given much weightage to the notice issued which is based on the finding arrived at during search proceedings itself rather than considering the evidence furnished by the appellant. The AO misunderstood the relevance of provision of s. 132(4) vis-a-vis provision of s 143 of the act. The provision of s. 132 (4) and 12 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 extracted herein for proper understanding the S. 143(3) are importance attached to both of them. S 132 officer during the course of the (4) The authorised may, seizure, examine on oath any person who is found search or or control of any books of account, to be in possession bullion, jewellery or other valuable article documents, money, or thing and any statement made by such person during moch thereafter be used in evidence in any examination may under the Indien Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of proceeding 1922), or under this Act. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared Explanation examination of any person under this sub-section that the in respect of any books of account, other may be not merely assets found as a result of the search, but also documents or all matters relevant for the purposes of any in respect of investigation connected with any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (1 1 of 1922), or under this Act.J S 143 specified in the notice issued under) sub- (3) On the day soon afterwards as may be, after hearing section (2), or as evidence as the assessee may produce and such other such the Assessing Officer may require on specified evidence as after taking into account all relevant material points, and has gathered, the Assessing Officer shall, by an which he in writing, make an assessment of the total income or order assessee, and determine the sum payable by him loss 0f the amount due to him on the basis of such or refund of any assessment:] Reading the above provision, it can be seen that while during of search, the authorized officer can examine any the course bullion etc as also record his person in possession of cash,_ statement which can be used in assessment proceedings, the is not a final word in the assessment. The assessment same 143(3) after considering the evidence as is to be framed u/ s assessee and take into account of all produced by the material. Thus, assessment is to be framed after relevant considering evidences filed during course of assessment and he cannot restrict only evidence found proceedings and explanation thoreof furnished during during search 13 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 the present case, much weightage is given search only. In evidence found during search, but the evidence only to the search proceeding and post search fumished during assessment proceedings are ignored for various proceeding, the asset found is kept, WhatsApp reasons like place where certain details which the Ao thinks non-mentioning should in the bill for purchase of gold, head be mentioned is recorded, presumption that under which the seized asset Poddar deals in gold in cash etc: All these are Suresh mly imagination or presumptions, assumptions and surmises than the evidences filed during the search of the AO rather proceedings and also assessment proceedings. of looking at the issue involved. The There is another way the explanation of 57.7 kg of gold found issue is regarding treated as unexplained and added during search which is The Whatsapp chat evidence found, if at u/ s 69A of the act. with the reasoning of the AO, is regarding_ one all by going during search which should be bar of 1 Kg gold found purchased and consumed for business considered as Whatsapp chat evidences of gold purposes and another in books of accounts are not found purchased and recorded 8 of gold. This analysis of AO itself during search for Kgs is no contrary evidence for balance 48.7 kgs show that there found and seized. Can the Ao generalize the evidence of gold small size as complete for entire lot? The answer is clearly ferthe The evidence filed for 48.7 kgs of gold cannot negative. doubted except for the reason that another be and is not gold is different than that found during purchase of 9 kg of the basis of presumption: The search which is also on Mr . presumption is that the images sent by Whatshin chaiffe Suresh Poddar is considered as purchases which is different on record. The statements of suppliers of gold duly from facts purchase by the appellant: There is no statement of Mr. Sroesk that the images is in respect of gold Poddar appellant: The purchase of gold is the duly purchased by books of accounts of earlier years when it was recorded in Thus questioning the same only on the basis not questioned. the Iaw year under consideration when of presumptions for the same was found during search is not tenable in search assessment proceeding and Further during the post proceeding the appellant has also during assessment the Gold bullion found submitted complete reconciliation of The A.0. has not pointed out any with books of accounts. in the reconciliation submitted or nor pointed out discrepancy 14 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 bullion/ = gold. The reconciliation submitted is any excess reproduced as under NALIN JAGDISHKUMAR GuptE AAEPCYIZOD - 2022 21 ITBNAPUS/250/2024-25/1073428335 Group 22L Jausllark oLl smtontnedo@ Suuicmcntol GoldndJcwellerz 9246482= A# LEann Page 34 0l 36 15 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 AAEPG99ZOB- NALIN JAGDISHKUMAR GUPTA A.Y. 2023-24 ITBAAPUSI250/2024-25/1073428991(1) Stutementef Geld and Jrwdkcry el(Kumar Group D Caa "trn arcy JiFont"y 06ju} Totu LSL UJANJLL 342 I Jui T! "u5 inlim The A.0 has not been able to refute the submissions and explanation of the appellant regarding purchase of Gold in cash, explanation about transaction with Mr . Suresh Poddar or the evidences, value of supplier statement and replies Taking the overall facts on record and the evidences filed during the course of assessment proceedings as also before it can be said that gold found and seized is me, duly explained and therefore the addition in respect of said gold found during search cannot be sustained. The addition of Rs_ 30,37,01,400/- is therefore deleted. Accordingly, ground of the appeal is Allowed. One more reason for making protective addition in the hands of appellant was the apprehension that at any time later that JKIL claim that the gold seized does not i) may belongs to it or 16 ITA No.2674/Mum/2025 ii) the appellant claims/ or it is established that gold seized belong to the appellant. However, neither JKIL has denied the ownership of gold seized nor the appellant claimed the gold belongs to him. In view of the above findings the protective addition of Rs. 22,08,62,400/-made by the Ao into the hands of the appellant is deleted. Accordingly, ground of the appeal is Allowed.