FORTUNE FOUNDATION,NEW FATEHPURA, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, UDAIPUR, SAVINA, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 274 & 275/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Years – 2022-23 & 2023-24) Gorbandh Kanha Properties Assistant Commissioner of 302, Vinayak Apartment, Income Tax, Central Circle 1, opposite Saint Merry School, Udaipur - 313001 New Fatehpura, Udaipur - 313001 PAN No. AAOFG 4169 L ITA No. 278/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Year – 2022-23) Fortune Foundation Assistant Commissioner of 302 Vinayak Complex, opp. Sant Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Marrys School 5A New Udaipur - 313001 Fatehpura, Udaipur - 313001 PAN No. AAATF 2793 F ITA No. 279/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Year – 2023-24) Gati Buildsquare LLP Assistant Commissioner of C-58 B, Mahaveer Marg C Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Scheme Udaipur - 313001 Jaipur - 302001 PAN No. AAUFG 8417 F

Assessee by Shri Prakul Khurana, Advocate & Mukesh Soni, CA (Physical) Revenue by Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR (Virtual)

2 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 Date of Hearing 03 / 06 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 30 / 06 / 2026. ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals by assessee are filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Udaipur-2 [hereinafter referred to CIT(A)] even dated 30.12.2025 with respect to Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24.

ITA No. 274/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Year: 2022-23)

3 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 b. without considering the supporting documents placed on record by the Appellant negating the various presumptions, assumptions and estimations of the Ld. AO. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving factually and legally incorrect and inconsistent findings/observations or inferences against the Appellant. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- made on the basis of: a. incorrect, vague, incomplete digital data / files which are not corroborated and lacks evidentiary value. b. alleged digital data/files not found during search in case of the Appellant. c. digital data/file allegedly recovered from mobile device, without bringing on records certificate of authenticity u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and also in violation of guidelines issued by CBDT. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. a. in upholding the addition on the basis of digital data/files while holding that statements of Mr. Gyan Chand Agarwal and others were not the basis of making addition. b. in upholding the action of the Ld. AO of not providing copies of third-party statements including an opportunity of rebuttal and cross examination thereof. c. in upholding that AO is not required to conduct cross examination or inquiries from any third party mentioned in the alleged documents found during search. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- by adopting a self-contradictory approach or basis for allegations of cash transaction or payment to various sellers. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 220(2) of the Act. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend and modify all or any ground of appeal on or before or during the course of the Appellate proceeding. ITA No. 275/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Year: 2023-24)

4 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] to the extent of confirming the action of the Ld. AO is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the impugned addition of Rs. 13,57,95,076/- u/s 69B of the Act in respect of alleged cash transaction to various sellers of the land. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned addition of Rs. 13,57,95,076/- u/s 69B of the Act: a. made by the Ld. AO wrongly taking presumption u/s 292C/132(44)- of the Act against the Appellant. b. without considering the supporting documents placed on record by the Appellant negating the various presumptions, assumptions and estimations of the Ld. AO. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving factually and legally incorrect and inconsistent findings/observations inferences against the Appellant. or 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned addition of Rs. 13,57,95,076/- made on the basis of: a. incorrect, vague, incomplete digital data / files which are not corroborated and lacks evidentiary value. b. alleged digital data/files not found during search in case of the Appellant. c. digital data/file allegedly recovered from mobile device, without bringing on records certificate of authenticity u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and also in violation of guidelines issued by CBDT. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified: a. in upholding the addition on the basis of digital data/files while holding that statements of Mr. Gyan Chand Agarwal and others were not the basis of making addition. b. in upholding the action of the Ld. AO of not providing copies of third-party statements including an opportunity of rebuttal and cross examination thereof. c. in upholding that AO is not required to conduct cross examination or inquiries from any third party mentioned in the alleged documents found during search.

5 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 13,57,95,076/- by adopting a self-contradictory approach or basis for allegations of cash transaction or payment to various sellers. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 220(2) of the Act. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend and modify all or any ground of appeal on or before or during the course of the Appellate proceeding. ITA No. 278/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Year: 2022-23)

6 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 b. alleged digital data/files not found during search in case of the Appellant. c. digital data/file allegedly recovered from mobile device, without bringing on records certificate of authenticity u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and also in violation of guidelines issued by CBDT. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified: a. in upholding the action of the Ld. AO of not providing copies of third-party statements including an opportunity of rebuttal and cross examination thereof. b. in upholding that AO is not required to conduct cross examination or inquiries from any third party mentioned in the alleged documents found during search. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 1,42,48,930/- by adopting a self-contradictory approach or basis for allegations of cash transaction or payment to various sellers. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend and modify all or any ground of appeal on or before or during the course of the Appellate proceeding. ITA No. 279/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Year: 2023-24)

7 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving factually and legally incorrect and inconsistent findings/observations or inferences against the Appellant. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned addition of Rs. 5,81,65,000/- made on the basis of: a. incorrect, vague, incomplete digital data / files which are not corroborated and lacks evidentiary value. b. alleged digital data/files not found during search in case of the Appellant. c. digital data/file allegedly recovered from mobile device, without bringing on records certificate of authenticity u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and also in violation of guidelines issued by CBDT. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified: a. in upholding the action of the Ld. AO of not providing copies of third-party statements including an opportunity of rebuttal and cross examination thereof. b. in upholding that AO is not required to conduct cross examination or inquiries from any third party mentioned in the alleged documents found during search. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 5,81,65,000/- by adopting a self-contradictory approach or basis for allegations of cash transaction or payment to various sellers. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 220(2) of the Act. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend and modify all or any ground of appeal on or before or during the course of the Appellate proceeding. 3. The appellant has raised common addition ground of appeal in ITA No. 274/ Jodh/2026 & 278/Jodh/2026 with respect to assessment year 2022-23 which reads as under:

“Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order dated

8 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 30.03.2024, is without jurisdiction and in violation of mandatory procedure u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. There are common issues raised, on identical facts, in all the four captioned appeals, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and adjudicated by this consolidated order for sake of brevity. The appeal in ITA No. 274/Jodh/2026 with respect to assessment year 2022-23 is taken as a lead case for discussion of facts and adjudication.

9 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 Rs. NIL/-. Thereafter, the case was centralized to DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur vide order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur. Further the case was selected for complete scrutiny and consequently notices were issued u/s 143(2) dated 29.03.2023 and 16.01.2023 respectively along with questionnaire. The Assessing Officer being not satisfied with the submissions of the appellant assessee has made an addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- u/s 69 on account of unaccounted investment while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2024.

“Hence, various evidences have been gathered during the course of search, which are independently recovered by the search team. The cash component involved in above mentioned land transactions is recorded in various digital form at the office premises of Shri Gyanchand Agarwal. The similar information was also recovered from Sumit Khandelwal who is an employee of the appellant. The PDF file recovered from his mobile phone conclusively prove that cash was involved in all the land dealings. The exact amount mentioned of cash at separate locations testifies the correctness of the figure. The appellant has not been able to counter the arguments of the AO by producing any new evidence/document which could refute the basis of addition made by the AO. The document recovered from Anil Jain containing data movement of cash from Udaipur to Jaipur for purchase of large land tracks as well as the statement provided by Shri Gyanchand Agarwal that he was involved in almost all the land purchase in the area of Bhankrota, Jaipur for setting up of medical college of the appellant are very strong evidence against the appellant.

10 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 The correlation between the various documents that have been seized during the course of search is also highlighted by figure of Rs. 40,01,70,411/- (26,03,32,608+13,98,37,803) mentioned at the lower part of the excel work sheet named as "All Account". The narration mentioned against this amount is total money received. The amount of Rs. 26,03,32,608/- is mentioned as शेष in the excel sheet at page 75 of exhibit 2 Party A-40. Therefore, the narration शेष (balance) does not support the argument of the appellant that this amount has not been paid to the various khatedars as the evidence in itself is pointing towards a situation where only cheque amount has been paid for registry to various khatedars. On the basis of the huge number of evidences gathered as well as the prevalent market practice, it is next to impossible to imagine that the land were purchased by making only cheque payment and there was no involvement even of single rupee in cash for these transactions. All these evidences/documents in the form of excel sheets recovered from the office premises of Shri Gyanchand Agarwal, from mobile phones of Anil Jain and Sumit Khandelwal as well as the statements recorded of Shri Anil Jain and Shri Gyanchan Agarwal under 132(4) informing that huge cash amount was received from Geetanjali Group for purchase of these lands for setting up of medical college at Bhankrota Jaipur; approves that there was an involvement of crores of rupees and the search proceedings has lead to seizure of irrefutable evidences against the assessee. Therefore, the action of AO is upheld and an addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act is sustained." 8. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- u/s 69B in respect of alleged cash transactions to various sellers of the land as against the AO made the impugned addition u/s 69 of the Act; that the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the impugned order under both the Sections 69 and 69B because AO has wrongly taken presumption u/s 292C r.w.s. 132(4A) of the Act against the assessee without considering the supporting documents placed on record by the appellant enacting the various presumptions, assumptions and estimations of the AO. The Ld. AR further submitted that the observation and finding of the Ld. CIT(A) are factually

11 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 and legally incorrect and inconsistent being made on the basis of incorrect, vague, incomplete digital data/files which are not corroborated and lack evidentiary value; alleged digital data/files not found during the search in the case of the appellant and that digital data/files allegedly record from mobile devices without bringing on records, certificate of authenticity u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and also in violation of the guidelines issue by the CBDT. The Ld. AR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition based on digital data/files while upholding that statements of Gyan Chand Agarwal and Others were not the basis of making addition; that the action of the AO in not providing copies of third party statements and an opportunity or rebuttal, and cross examination thereof and that the AO was not required to conduct cross examination or enquiries from any third party mentioned in the alleged document found during the search. The Ld. Counsel argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- by adopting a self-contradictory approach for allegations of cash transactions or repayment to various sellers. The Ld. AR has pleaded to delete the addition made and sustained in absence of any incriminating document found and seized from the business premises of the assessee, during the course of

12 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 search u/s 132 of the Act. In support of the contentions, the appellant has filed a written note. The relevant part of the note reads as under:

A. Impugned addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- made u/s 69 or 69B of the Act is not justified: 1. The Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- u/s 69 or 69B of the Act on account of alleged "unexplained investment". Whereas there is contrary stand taken by Ld. CIT(A) that addition is sustained u/s 69B of the Act, whereas the Ld. AO invoked the provision of Section 69 of the Act, which both provisions are inapplicable. 2. It is a settled legal position that Section 69 or Section 69B of the Act can only be invoked if the Revenue first establishes, with corroborative evidence, that an investment was actually made outside the books of account. 3. In the present case, the Applicant's land purchases were fully documented through registered sale deeds and settled entirely via banking channels. The entire addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- has been made on direct conclusion that the Applicant has made investment in cash and burden with respect to the said allegation was not discharged. 4. It is a trite law that the burden is first on the department to establish that the Applicant has made an investment which is not recorded in books of account is supported by the judicial precedents relevant extract of which is reproduced herein below for your kind perusal: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gian Gupta [2014] 46 taxmann.com 372 (Delhi) 5. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also examined this issue once again and came to the conclusion that as the transaction itself never took place, there would be no question of investment and, therefore, no question of any unexplained investment. The amount of Rs 1 crore, which was paid by cheque, was returned as the transaction had fallen through. The Tribunal also took the view that the onus was on the Assessing Officer to establish that an investment of Rs 1 crore in cash had been made. That onus was not discharged and, therefore, it could be concluded that an unexplained investment of Rs 1 crore in

13 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 cash had been made by the assessee. The exact findings of the Tribunal are as under:- "5. On due consideration of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer has given unnecessary weightage to the copy of MoU. The factum of transfer of a capital asset by Mrs Jind Singh in favour of the assessee was not established. The case of the assessee is that he has not purchased any land. The alleged MoU is a document exhibiting the negotiation of the purchase of land, The Assessing but Officer has erroneously observed that it is for the assessee to it never materialized. the assessee with tax on was account of establish that land was not purchased. In our opinion, for charging unexplained investment, it is the Assessing Officer who ought purchased by to have established that land the assessee and he failed to disclose the source of such purchase. Instead of discharging this onus, learned Assessing Officer treated a document as gospel truth and tried to put an onus upon the assessee to prove a negative fact which is law. Learned First Appellate not permissible in Authority has rightly considered this aspect and deleted the addition. Ananthakrishna Vasudev Aithal v. Income-tax Officer, [2023] 147 taxmann.com 376 (Bangalore - Trib.) 9. “It is thus clear from the order of the NFAC that there is no proper application of the mind. Nevertheless, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer has made the addition u/s 69 of the Act. This section, in turn, provides that: 'Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has nude investments which are not recorded in the books of account, it' any, maintained by him for any source of Income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may he deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year.' A careful perusal of the provision divulges that in order to invoke this provision, it is sine qua non that the assessee must have made investments which are not recorded in the books of account. The factum of the assesses having made investment should be first proved by the AO, only then the burden shifts on the assessee to prove the source of investment. Such invesment outside the books of account must be positively proved by the AO and not only inferred from the attending facts. If such an investment outside the books is not proved, the assessee cannot be called upon to prove the source of such a hypothetical investment. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, we find that apart from relying on the DVO's report, the AO has not brought anything on record or any other material to indicate that the assessee did make investment in purchase of property over and above that declared in the books of account.”

14 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 5. In view of the above, the requisite burden under Section 69 or Section 69B of the Act regarding the alleged cash payment or investment such as its date, purpose, payment details, and recipient has not been discharged. In the absence of such evidence, any addition is unsustainable. 6. In view of the above, the invocation of Section 69B of the Act in the present case is not legal justified and accordingly, the disputed demand is not payable and deserves to be stayed. B. The Ld. CIT(A) invalidated the action of the Ld. AO by taking resort directly to Section 69B of the Act and giving no finding on applicability of Section 69: 7. At the outset, it is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has made impugned addition u/s 69B of the Act without issuing any show cause notice. further, the Ld. CIT(A) has itself rendered the findings of the Ld. AO making addition u/s 69 of the Act irrelevant and invalid by taking direct resort to provisions of Section 69B of the Act. It is submitted that neither the Ld. AO nor Ld. CIT(A) has given any show cause notice for making addition u/s 69B of the Act. Therefore, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is beyond the scope of the subject matter of the impugned assessment order, hence invalid. C. Grossly erred in taking presumption under Section 292C/132(4A) of the Act against the Applicant:

15 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 b. This loose sheet was not located in the possession of the Applicant or the Applicant Group, and the exact source of its discovery remains uncertain. c. The digital file was retrieved from another individual's device without following the guidelines of CBDT and any certificate of authenticity. d. The contents of both the loose sheet and the digital file lack corroboration from independent evidence. e. Supporting documents submitted, including party affidavits, registered sale deeds, bank statements, etc., directly counter the presumption drawn against the Applicant. f. No investigation or inquiries were made from counterparties involved. g. The loose sheet/file relied upon is neither authored nor signed by the Applicant or any authorized representative. 10. In view of the above, the additions made are not sustainable. The Applicant's case is fully covered by following judicial precedents: Straptex (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax, [2003] 84 ITD 320 (MUM.) 8. Let us examine the facts of this case in the light of our above findings. There was search at the premises of Shri Niranjan Shah, in which a computer floppy was found. On the basis of the contents of the above floppy, the Revenue held that the assessee had borrowed the money in cash which was denied by the assessee. In support of its contention, the Revenue has relied upon section 132(4A). We have already held above that the presumption under section 132(4A) is applicable only against the person from whose possession the document was found and not against any person. We have also held that the presumption under section 132(4A) is only a rebuttable presumption and not a conclusive one. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, has denied having borrowed any money from Shri Niranjan Shah in cash. The Assessing Officer, to support the contents of the floppy, has relied upon the statement of Shri Niranjan Shah given at the time of search. However, we find that the Assessing Officer again examined him under section 131 wherein he had denied having advanced any cash to the assessee. Ajay Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2020] 114 taxmann.com 577 (Allahabad) 12. As, Section 132(4A) of the Act provides that any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things found in

16 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 possession or in control of any person in course of search may be presumed to be belonging to such person, and further, contents of such books of account and documents are true. But this presumption is not provided in absolute terms and the word used is "may" and not "shall", as such the revenue has to corroborate the entries made in the seized documents before presuming that transactions so entered were made by the assessee. Presumption so provided is not in absolute terms but is subject to corroborative evidence. In the present case, Tribunal only on basis of presumption under Section 132 (4A) of the Act, reversed the finding of CIT (A), without recording any finding as to how the loose sheets which were recovered during search, were linked with the assessee. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the Tribunal was not justified in reversing the finding by the CIT (Appeals). Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gordhanbhai L. Talavia, [2023] 146 taxmann.com 528 (Surat-Trib.) 16. The ld. CIT(A) by referring the decision in Shri S.K. Gupta (supra) wherein it was held that where the paper in question does not indicate that any transaction had ever taken place as it does not contain any information as to what was the nature of transactions and that when no evidence has been brought on record to corroborate the allegation that assessee has entered into any transaction or had earned any income or whether any relevancy for determination of the income in the hand of assessee. No addition can be made. The ld. CIT(A) also referred the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Girish Chaudhary (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra). In V.C Shukla (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that file containing loose papers are not 'books' and hence, entries are not admissible under section 34 of the Evidence Act. The Id. CIT(A) held that no addition can be made on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures and the addition is merely based on dump documents found during the search. We find that the assessing officer has not conducted any separate or independent evidence to bring corroborative evidence to connect the entry in seized materiel as per Annexure-A-2 and A-4. The assessing officer has filed the copy or the original of the seized material before Tribunal of the reasons best known to him. In absence of any corroborative no contrary presumption can be drawn against the assessee on a mere figure on the loose papers, when the assessee right from the beginning contending that is no signature of the assessee nor there is narration rather it was a figurative figure of working of future project of Shital Rayans Private Limited. 11. In view of the above, the impugned addition is not sustainable.

17 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 D. Impugned addition - made by relying on the digital excel file is not justified: 12. The adverse view against the Applicant regarding alleged unaccounted investment made by the Applicant is taken by the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), relying on the impugned excel file recovered from the possession of another person who is not associated to the Applicant. Admittedly, said excel file is a digital file allegedly recovered behind the back of the Applicant. The contents of the said digital file are not corroborated and even the said contents does not establish the case of cash payments as no complete trails or receipts have been found and even not brought on record. 13. The addition is based on an Excel file and loose sheets which lack any corroboration. The Ld. AO also failed to follow the CBDT Digital Evidence Investigation Manual, which mandates that digital data must be linked to physical evidence to establish genuineness. Furthermore, no certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was produced to authenticate the electronic records, rendering them inadmissible. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO by making general reference that guidelines were followed without bringing on record any certificate of authenticity and even the identity or statement of the person who is claimed to be owner of the said digital data/file. 14. The case of the Applicant is squarely covered by decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1(2), [2024] 160 taxmann.com 287 (Madras) wherein it was held that: If any oral/documentary evidence is relied upon to corroborate the electronic data, the DDIT is to be directed to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, whose oral evidence is relied upon to corroborate the electronic data collected by the respondents 15. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the purported Excel file was not discovered during the search proceedings involving the Applicant. Even if considered, the document lacks probative value as it is neither corroborated by independent material nor supported by direct testimony. The evidentiary value of the Excel file is further diminished by the statement of Mr. Gyan Chand Agarwal, who did not affirm the occurrence of any alleged cash payment by the Applicant.

18 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 16. Moreover, no evidence has been produced to substantiate the claim that the Applicant paid an amount exceeding that reflected in the registered sale deed via cash. The assertion made by the Ld. AO is speculative in nature, as it is unsupported by any record of actual cash investment by the Applicant. 17. During the proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A) Udaipur-2, the Applicant asserted that no addition under Section 69 of the was justified. Nonetheless, the Ld. CIT(A), without adequately considering the bona fide submissions of the Appellant and the legal and factual context, arbitrarily upheld the findings of the Learned AO and sustained the impugned addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- under Section 69 of the Act, which is improper, contrary to law, and unsustainable. 18. In view of the above, impugned addition made by relying on the digital excel files is not justified. E. Addition made purely on estimates, assumption, presumption and guess work only.

19 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 3. We have already noted the defects pointed out by the assessing authority. It has to be held that the defects so pointed out are nothing but assumptions and surmises. There was not inspections of the business premises nor any discrepancy could be found out from the verification of the books. The facts that the business is located in an important locality, that there is a telephone in the shop, that the sales reported are very low, that no bulk sales are recorded during Onam and other special occasions, that no stones and pearls were found out in the shop, that no purchase of old gold, etc. by itself cannot be substitute for materials for rejecting the accounts or for making additions. In the instant case except the general observations made by the assessing authority on assumptions and presumptions there is no specific material for rejecting the books of accounts and for making the Based on estimation. mere conjectures and surmises the assessing authority cannot make an estimate of taxable turnover. The assessee declared a taxable turnover of Rs. 10,43,756.73 in a place like Punalur. Of course if there was an inspection and detection of materials which would establish unaccounted purchases and sales of either new gold ornaments or old gold, the authorities would have been justified in rejecting the books of accounts and in estimating the turnover with due regard to the suppression found. In this case, in the absence of any such materials, the assessing authority was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts and in estimating the turnover. According to us the assessing authority as well as the two appellate authorities had erred in rejecting the books of accounts and in estimating the taxable turnover at Rs. 70,32,530/- and in sustaining such estimation to the extent of an amount equal to the taxable turnover returned. In these circumstance, we set aside the orders of the assessing authority and the two appellate authorities and direct the assessing authority to accept the books of accounts and to complete the assessment accordingly. We make it clear that we have done so only because of the total absence of any material warranting rejection of accounts. This Tax Revision Case is disposed of as above. R.P. LOCKS COMPANY v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2000] 67 TTJ 588 (Delhi) 7. Regarding the other issue, the list related to the stocks found at the premises of Bashiruddin & Co. and the assessee gave an explanation in this behalf. No doubt it failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the list related to a Court case against Bashiruddin & Co. who were stated to be indulging in manufacturing duplicate goods under the trade name of the assessee but, we are of the considered opinion that on the basis of this list alone, an inference could not be drawn that the assessee had made sales outside the accounts books to Bashiruddin & Co. The minimum that was expected from the Assessing Officer was to examine Bashiruddin & Co. This having not been done, the inference is a

20 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 mere assumption. The assessee has now stated that it is in a position to corroborate its statement by producing documentary evidence. In fact, a copy of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court order has been placed before us. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter has to go back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in the matter, in accordance with law, after hearing the assessee. Order accordingly. HIRA STEEL LTD. V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR [2005] 149 Taxman 20 (Nagpur) (Mag.)[29-04-2005] The Assessing Officer had made the addition on the sole ground that there was no address of any person and treated the amount in question as unexplained cash credits under section 68. Both the lower authorities failed to appreciate the case of the assessee that those were trade advances and not cash credits and against such advances, the assessee had supplied the material in due time as per details available on record. In view of the above, there was no justification for revenue authorities to treat those cash advances as unexplained cash credits under section 68. On the contrary, the assessee had produced challans and invoices under which the goods were supplied by the assessee against such advances received from the various parties. It is well-settled by judicial precedent that the addition cannot be made merely on assumption or presumptions or surmises or conjectures. It is the burden of the department to prove the correctness of such addition. Moreover, such method of carrying on of business by accepting advance payment with regard to sale of material had not been shown to be, in any way, illegal. As far as the assessee was concerned, it appealed to reason that by following that method, the assessee as a prudent businessman would insure itself against non-payment from the purchasers. 22. In view of the above, the impugned addition is not legally sustainable. F. No inquiry/investigation was conducted: 23. It is humbly submitted that the Applicant has submitted all the supporting documentary evidence including the affidavit of the Khatedars and registered sale deeds to support the fact that the Applicant has not made investment to alleged cash payment. However, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the documentary evidence placed on record by the Applicant and allegedly drew adverse inference against the Applicant without any inquiries from the counter party and even any action against the same. 24. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in holding that no inquiries are required to be made by Ld. AO from the khatedars/counter party. As per provision of the Act, the Ld. AO has power to conduct the inquiry from counter

21 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 parties, though, no such inquiry has been made with the person to whom it is alleged that the Applicant has paid consideration in cash and there is no other material brought on record to support the allegations levelled against the Applicant. 25. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that no inquiries are required is against the well settled judicial precedents and principles laid down by various judicial forums as under: M/s. Rhythm Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Mumbai ITA no.2325/Mum./2016 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed, even though, in course of proceedings before him the Assessing Officer was directed to examine the submissions made by the assessee and conduct necessary enquiry, however, the Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry has submitted his remand report on 18th August 2015, by simply stating that the documents forwarded to him have already been considered by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual position, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that in the absence of any evidence brought on record to prove the payment of on- money by the assessee the addition made under section 69B of the Act cannot be sustained. 26. Even the Ld. AO as well as CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no reference to DVO was made by the Ld. AO to ascertain the actual value of the investment. 27. In view of the above, the impugned addition is not legally sustainable. G. Loose sheets have no evidentiary value: 28. No evidence is brought on record to establish that alleged payment as per the version of Ld. AO/CIT(A) alleged to be mentioned/indicated in the digital files were made by the Applicant. The said loose sheets were not found in possession of the Applicant / Applicant Group, the contents of the same are not corroborated. Even if rather contents of the said loose sheet are to be relied upon, then, the same requires corroboration through proper inquiries and cogent material on record, which establishes its authenticity and veracity. 29. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition merely on the basis of suspicion, estimation and guess work and presumptions only as even the derivation of the figures/quantum of addition is based on hypothetical calculation.

22 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 30. Therefore, on this ground also the impugned addition on account of alleged unexplained investment is not justified. The Applicant's case is squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble ITAT in case of Sri B. Bhaskar Rao, Hyderabad vs Dy. Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle - 6, Hyderabad, ITA Nos. 1731, 1732, 1733 & 1734/Hyd/2013, which adequately covers the case of the Applicant, wherein it was held that: Therefore, it is very much essential to know how these payments have been treated at the hands of the company. Neither the assessment order nor any other material brought on record could even remotely establish that payments to the extent indicated in the loose sheet were actually made to the assessee. It appears from the facts on record that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have conducted any enquiry to ascertain the real fact. In these circumstances, solely relying upon this single piece of paper addition cannot be made at the hands of the assessee considering the fact that there is serious doubt with regard to authenticity of notings made therein. As it appears, the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely on presumption without making any enquiry to establish the fact that payments as per the impounded document was actually received by assessee. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh after conducting necessary enquiry in the matter. We make it clear that unless there are enough corroborative evidence to show that payments as per the impounded document were actually received by assessee no addition can be made. Accordingly, these grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes 31. In view of the above, impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable and accordingly consequential demand is not payable. H. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: Denial of Cross- Examination 32. In making the impugned addition on alleged unaccounted investment the Ld. AO placed reliance on statement of Mr. Gyan Chand Agarwal, and others, whose statement have been recorded behind the back of the Applicant and has not been confronted and beside this opportunity of cross examination is not given/provided to the Applicant. These statements are not at all having any nexus with impugned additions made in impugned assessment order. 33. The Ld. CIT(A) in its order dated 30.12.2025 has also erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in not providing the opportunity to cross examination by taking reliance on judicial precedents which are not applicable in the present

23 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 case and also not a good law having regard to law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in following cases:  Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)  Kishinchand Chellaram v. Commissioner of Income-tax* [1980] 4 Taxman 29 (SC)  Ashok Lalwani* v. Income-tax Officer [2011] 196 Taxman 82 (Delhi) (MAG.)  Commissioner of Income-tax v. Eastern Commercial Enterprise, [1994] 210 ITR 103 (CAL.) 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR heavily relied on the impugned order and he has reiterated the finding and observation given by Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. DR failed to controvert the factual contentions and judicial precedents furnished by the appellant. The Ld. DR did not furnish any contrary judgment.

24 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 and conclusive evidence as if recovered from the assessee itself based on the documents found from Shri Gyan Chand Agarwal. The AO has alleged that the assessee has purchased land parcels in Bhakrota, Jaipur from various parties for a sum of Rs. 7,05,98,000/- as per books of account and during the search action, evidences of on-money payments in acquisition of aforesaid land were discovered. We find that the AO without making specific mention of particular incriminating document found or recovered from the premises of the appellant assessee during the course of search action merely based on examination of the digital data as well as manual data of the details of the cash investments made by Geetanjali Group found recorded in various evidences gathered from business premises of Shri Gyan Chand Agarwal, residential premises of Shri Anil Kumar (employee of Gyan Chand Agarwal Group) and Sumit Khandelwal (employee of Geetanjali Group) alleged that appellant assessee has made payment of on- money to the sellers of the land against the investment.

25 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 against the addition made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 69 of the Act but both these provisions are inapplicable to the facts of the present case because the department has failed to establish with corroborative evidence that an investment was actually made outside the books of account of the assessee.

12.1 In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gian Gupta (supra), Hon’ble Delhi High Court while upholding the finding of the AO has observed vide para 5 that the onus was on the Assessing Officer to establish that an investment has been made in cash and that onus was not discharged and, therefore, it could not be concluded that an unexplained investment in cash has been made by the assessee. In another case of Ananthakrishna Vasudev Aithal Vs. Income Tax

26 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 Officer (supra), the Banglore Tribunal has observed that the factum of assessee having made investment should be first proved by the AO only then the burden shifts to the assessee to prove the source of investment. Such an investment outside the books of account must be positively prove by the AO and not only inferred from the attending facts if such an investment outside the books of account is not proved. The assessee cannot be called upon to prove the source of such a hypothetical investment. The Tribunal has further observed that the requisite burden u/s 69 or 69B of the Act regarding the alleged cash payment or investment such as date, purpose, payment details and recipient had not been discharged. In absence of such evidence, any addition is unsustainable.

27 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 Ld. CIT(A) is held beyond the scope of the subject matter of the impugned assessment order accordingly rendered invalid.

28 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 bank statements, etc. directly counter the presumption drawn by the department against the appellant. The department has not carried out any investigation/enquiries from the counter parties involved in the transactions/investments alleged by the department.

15.1 In the case of Straptex (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the presumption u/s 132(4A) is applicable only against the person from whose possession the document was found and not against any person. It is further held that presumption u/s 132(4A) is only rebuttal presumption and not a conclusive one.

29 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 15.2 In the case of Ajay Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the Allahabad High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal by observing that the Tribunal has only on the basis of presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act reverse the finding of the CIT(A) without recording any finding as to how the loose sheets which are recovered during search, were linked with the assessee in the absence of corroborative evidence and so the Tribunal was not justified in reversing the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A). In the present case, neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded any finding as to how the loose sheets/digital files which were recovered/retrieved during the search were linked with the assessee’s. In absence of corroborative evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,69,55,790/- made by the AO.

30 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 which mandates that digital data must be linked to a documentary evidence to establish genuineness. It is noted that further no certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was produced by the department to authenticate the electric records, rendering them inadmissible. In view of that matter, the Ld. CIT(A) order is infirm and perverse in upholding the action of the AO by making general reference that guidelines were followed without bringing on record any certificate of authenticity and even the identity or statement of the person who is claimed to be owner of the said digital data/file. On this issue, the appellan’s case is squarely covered by decision of Hon’ble High Courts in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2) (supra) where it was held that if any oral documentary evidence is relied upon to corroborate the electronic data, the DDIT is to be allowed the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses whose oral evidence is relied upon to corroborate the electronic data collected by the respondents.

31 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 excel file is further diminished by the statement of Mr. Gyan Chand Agarwal who did not affirm the occurrence of any alleged cash payment by the appellant. Further the department has not brought on record any evidence to substantiate that the appellant had paid any on-money over and above what is reflected in the registered sale deed via cash. Meaning thereby, the assertion made by the Ld. AO is speculative in nature without support of any corroborative documentary evidence on record.

32 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 19. It is further noted that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) appears to be purely on estimate, assumption, presumption and guesswork. The Ld. CIT(A) decision is purely based on speculations, lacking substantiation, as it was presumed that registered sale deeds do not necessarily reflect the complete and true consideration in real estate transactions without any basis which is purely an assumption. The various inferences, observations or alleged findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are inconsistent, self-contradictory in nature, incorrect which establishes that impugned order is based on the basis of assumptions, estimations or guesswork being applied directly to draw the conclusion of alleged unaccounted payments. It is settled law that addition cannot be made on the basis of assumption, presumption or estimation and any such addition made is not tenable in the eyes of law as the assumption howsoever is strong cannot partake the character of evidence. Our this view gets support from the judgment delivered in the case of Master Jewellers Vs. State of Kerala (supra), RP Locks Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and Hira Steel Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Raipur (supra).

33 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 unearthed or recovered during the course of search conducted by the department. The Ld. AR argued that appellant has submitted all the supporting documentary evidence including affidavit of khatedars and registered deeds which rebut the facts that appellant has not made investment to the alleged cash payments. However, the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the documentary evidences placed on record by the appellant and allegedly drew adverse inference against the applicant without any inquiries from the counter parties though the AO has power to conduct enquiry from counter parties. In our view, the AO ought to have conducted enquiries from these counter parties/persons to who it is alleged that appellant had paid alleged on-money consideration in cash. The department did not bring any material on record to support the allegations levelled against the appellant. In our view, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that no enquiries are required is against the well settled judicial precedents and principle of law laid down by various judicial forums as discussed by Mumbai ITAT in the case of M/s Rhythm Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra).

34 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 apparently clear from the record that while making impugned additions on alleged unaccounted investment, the AO relied on the statement of Shri Gyan Chand Agarwal and others whose statement have been recorded behind the back of the appellant who were not confronted/rebutted to the appellant by allowing an opportunity of cross examination, during the assessment proceeding or appellate proceeding. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) in its order has uphold the addition of the AO brushing aside the vital issue of opportunity of cross examination by misplacing reliance on the judicial precedents, which are not applicable to the facts of the present case and also not a good law lied down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) and Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra).

35 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 before different authorities, at different times, can be used against the assessee. More so, when none of the witnesses were examined before the AO, and the assessee did not have any opportunity to cross examine them. 8. In any case, the question as to whether the consideration of Rs. 61 lacs, or any other higher consideration than the one, mentioned in the sale deed, did pass from the assessee to the seller or not, does nonetheless remain a question of fact, and it is not shown by the Department, that any relevant material has been ignored, or misread by the learned CIT, or the learned Tribunal." "15. CIT v. Dhrampal Premchand Ltd. "However, AO paid no heed to such request and proceeded with assessment order- Whether since correctness or otherwise of report, on basis of which assessment order was passed against assessee, was itself under challenge, said repost could not be automatically accepted and Assessing Officer committed violation of principles of natural justice in not permitting cross-examination of analyst and relying upon his report to detriment of assessee - Held, yes." "16. CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal "11. In the present case the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement of Smt. Sarla Aggarwal, daughter of the assessed while arriving at the conclusion, that the entries belong to the transactions of the assessed. This statement made by Smt. Sarla Gupta, cannot be said to be relevant or admissible evidence against the assessed, since the assessed was not given any opportunity to cross- examine her and even from the statement, no conclusion can be drawn that the entries made on the relevant page belongs to the assessed and represents his undisclosed income. It is also an admitted fact that the statement of the assessed was not recorded at any stage during the assessment proceedings. The only conclusion which can be drawn about the nature and contents of the document is that it is a dumb document and on the basis of the entry of nothings or figure etc. in this document, it cannot be concluded that this represents the undisclosed income of the assessed. 10. It is well settled that the only person competent to give evidence on the truthfulness of the coagainst a the document is the writer there person to give contents of the document are proved person, the possession of the document or hand writing of that person, on such document by diorities, ie, the contents of the document. These are the indings of recorded by both the authorities, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. 15. In the present case as already held above, the documents recovered during the course of search from the assessed are dumb documents and there the concurrent findings of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal to this and there are

36 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 conclusions are essentially factual, no substantial question of law arises for consideration." "17. Paramjit Singh v. ITO, IT Appeal No. 401 of 2009 "We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that they do not warrant acceptance. There is a well-known principle that no oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity 'the 1872 Act') incorporate the aforesaid principle. According to section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof. According to section 92 of the 1872 Act once the document is tendered in evidence and proved as per the requirements of section 91 then no evidence of any oral agreement or statement would be admissible as between the parties to any such instrument for the purposes of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. According to illustration 'b' to section 92 if there is absolute agreement in writing between the parties where one has to pay the other a principal sum by specified date then the oral agreement that the money was not to be paid till the specified date cannot be proved. Therefore, it follows that no oral agreement contradicting/varying the terms of a document could be offered. Once the aforesaid principal is clear then ostensible sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed dated 24-9-2002 (A.7) has to be accepted and it cannot be contradicted by adducing any oral evidence. Thereafter, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity in reaching to the conclusion that the amount shown in the registered sale deed was received by the vendors and deserves to be added to the gross income of the assessee- appellant." "18. CIT-13 v. M/s. Ashish International (ITA No. 4299 of 2009; dated, 22-2-2011) "The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee had disputed the correctness of the above statement and admittedly the assessee was not given any opportunity to cross examine the concerned Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies (P.) Ltd. who had made the above statement. The appellate authority had sought remand report and even at that stage the genuineness of the statement has not been established by allowing cross examination of the person whose statement was relied upon by the revenue. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs." "19. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anil Khandelwal (21-4-2015 - DELHC) "6. This Court further notices that the ITAT independently examined the evidence which the CIT(A) had scrutinized. It also took note of the paper book which had been furnished

37 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 to the lower authorities and was satisfied that the amounts attributed to the assessee in fact had not been established and that in the given circumstances, the reference to Section 132(4A) and Section 292C was not justified. Having regard to the factual nature of the dispute and having examined the findings of the lower authorities on this account which we do not consider unreasonable, this Court holds that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. "20. Commissioner v. Motabhai Iron and Steel Industries (3-9-2014-GUJHC) "10. From the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the sole basis of the demand was the statement of Shri Arjandas who did not appear pursuant to the summons issued to him. The assessee was, therefore, deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in respect of the statements made against him. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the statement of such witness who has not subjected himself to cross-examination by the affected party. Under the circumstances, the statement made by Shri Arjandas lost its efficacy and therefore, could not have been used against the assessee. Besides, the Tribunal has also found that M/s. Star Associates was regularly supplying goods to the assessee in the past and on no occasion, it was found that they had issued invoice without actually supplying the goods. It is in the light of the aforesaid facts that the Tribunal has deleted the disallowances of credit of Rs. 14,42,177/-. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal while deleting the disallowance of credit of Rs. 14,42,177/-." "21. CIT v. S.C. Sethi, D.B.I.T Appeal No. 78 of 2005, 10-3-2006 "10. The facts stated above clearly indicate that no question of law arises in this appeal. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact affirming the earlier finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). Apparently when the loose papers by itself did not indicate receipt of the alleged undisclosed income by the assessee and peripheral reliance on the document was not earlier countenanced in absence of opportunity of cross-examination of the person from whose possession the loose papers were recovered. The fact that the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to serve the said Sh. A.K. Chhajer and secure his presence by invoking powers under the Income-tax Act for securing presence of any witness also goes to show that the Assessing Officer has not really made efforts to give effect to the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for making available opportunity of cross- examining Sh. A.K. Chhajer by the assessee." 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Taking into consideration the observation made by the Tribunal regarding not allowing cross-examination of Mr. Thakkar from whose documents the amount is alleged to have been taken in the interest of the assessee.

38 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 8. In that view of the matter the finding recorded by the Tribunal is just and proper and issues is answered in favour of the of the assessee against the department 23. Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Niru Dhiren shah [2025] 180 taxmann.com 370 (Mumbai Tribunal) on similar issue has observed that the Assessing Officer has made addition u/s 69A on ground that assessee has received amount over and above sale value of immovable property shown, since said additions were made based on a WhatsApp chat between buyer’s son and his accountant containing an Excel sheet with rough value workings, with no mention of assessee or impugned transaction and without corroborative evidence of receipt of extra cash, such addition was held based on conjecture and deleted by observing vide para 7.1 and 7.2 as under:

“The AO has placed considerable reliance on the digital evidence in the form of chats. However, we find that the order is completely silent on whether the requirements of section 65B of the India Evidence Act, 1972 have been satisfied or not since the provisions require that to be admissible, they must be accompanied with a valid certificate under section 65B(4). Mere screenshots or forwarded chats have no evidentiary value since they are susceptible to tampering or fabrication. Unless the source dėvise is produced or section 65B certificate is produced, such chats cannot be relied upon. In view of the discussion above, we hold that the addition made by the AO is based more on conjectures and surmises rather than on concrete evidence. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the appellate order deleting the addition made. Consequently, all the grounds of appeal which are interlinked to each other are hereby dismissed.”

39 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 24. In another case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abhipush Properties (P.) Ltd. [2025] 180 taxmann.com 799 (Ahmedabad) on similar issue vide para 10 has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s 69C and 69B in reassessment proceedings treating difference between registered value on money paid by assessee to purchase plot of land and construction of villa, but no independent evidence was brought on record to show that said Excel Sheet belonged to assessee or that any amount of on-money was ever paid by assessee to developer, impugned reassessment order passed on basis of said unsigned Excel Sheet was quashed.

40 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 26. Accordingly, the impugned addition amounting to Rs. 6,69,55,790/- made by the AO based on presumption, assumption and conjectures is deleted.

Order pronounced on 30/06/2026 under Rule 34(4), in accordance with the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 30/06/2026. Nimisha Sr. PS

41 ITA Nos. 274, 275, 278 & 279/Jodh/2026 Asst. Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24 True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,