ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KASTHOORI RAJA DHANUSH, CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’
यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं

ी जगदीश, लेखा सद के सम

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3188 to 3192/Chny/2024
िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 &
2020-21
&
Cross-Objection Nos.22 to 26/Chny/2025
िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 &
2020-21

The ACIT,
Central Circle-2(2),
Chennai.

v.
Kasthoori Raja Dhanush,
Old No.16/5, New No.33/5,
Rajamannar Street,
Thyagaraya Nagar,
Chennai-600 017. [PAN: ACTPV 0618 E]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

(यथ/Respondent/Cross-
Objector)

Department by :
Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Assessee by :
Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
सुनवाईक तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
28.04.2025
घोषणाक तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
30.06.2025

आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A) ‘) all dated 17.10.2024 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter in short ‘AY’) 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18,
2019-20 & 2020-21 and Cross-Objections (CO) filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17
involved are common,a were heard together. B similar arguments on convenience and brevit order.
2. The main issue p are concerning to add assessee based on mat
Shri G.N. Anbuchezhian financier in the cinema i
3. Before adverting consider it fit to cull ou before us.
Search
(hereinafterreferred to 05-02-2020.The AO is 30-08-2022 stating that the note that, incrim assessee and had a be reproduced hereunder:-
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::2 ::

, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21. S all the appeals &CO’sfor all the ass
Both theparties also argued them t n theseissues. Accordingly, for ty, we disposeall the appeals by th permeating in all these appeals/C dition(s) made by the AO in the terial seized from the premises of t n [in short ‘Anbu’], who was inter a industry.
to the grounds raised by the Rev ut the basic facts of the case in res u/s 132
of the Income
Ta as "the Act") was conducted agains found to have recorded a satisfact t, he was satisfied as per the Annex inating material found was ‘belo aring on his total income. The rele
- -

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush
Sincethe issues sessment years ogether raising the sake of his consolidated ross-Objections hands of the third party i.e., alia found be a venue, we first spect of theAYs x
Act,
1961
st Shri Anbu on tion note dated xure attached to onging to’ the evant portion is 7. Satisfaction of the Asse the person referred in S the seized material refe with the person referred

essing Officer of Section 15A that erred in Sl No. 5
to in S.No.4
I am satisfied that th material seized as above belong to Shr and have a bearing on of the total income of S
Annexure appended to the satisfactio ved that the relevant seized materi a bearing on his total income for A Annexure is extracted below: - eizure operation was conducted in the case and others on 05.02.2020. During ious incriminating material being loose sh
Electronic devices were seized.
of incriminating material seized vid
S/S-30 from Shri. Aravindan Ramalingam a Nagar, Chennai 600 040 and loose shee
NN/KM/GNA-YOG/LS/S-56 & 59 from S l Street, Flat No.4, 1*t Floor,T. Nagar, Ch hri. G. N. Anbuchezhian has entered into g cash loan with Shri. K. R. Dhanush. Furth paid the cash loan alongwith interest. Prim red into is in violation of provisions of Inc s penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Income -ta of repayment of cash loan along with in above, I am satisfied that the above sei i. K. R. Dhanush, other than the person r ri iction of which vests with me.
tisfied that the above seized ma
-30 and ANN/KM/GNA-YOG/LS/5-56 &
anush, which have a bearing on the de ome of Shri. K. R. Dhanush, for the A , in accordance with the provisions of Inc

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush he incriminating per Annexures ri K.R. Dhanush the determination hri K R Dhanush on note, the AO ial pertained to AYs 2014-15 to e of Shri G N the search heet, Book &
de annexure at No. AA-35, et seized vide
Shagun Villa, hennai -17, it various cash er, Shri. K.R.
ma facie cash come-tax Act, ax Act, 1961. nterest needs ized material referred to in terials vide
59 pertains etermination
A.Y. 2014-15
come-tax Act,

1961, it is a fit ca
15 to 2020-21. 5. It is observed fro searched person, the m the premises of Shri A ID marked ANN/KM/GN
Anbu revealed that, Shr assessee, and that the interest. These entries consequence u/s.271D/
also required verificatio the relevant entries pe assessee, value of alleg in the satisfaction note satisfaction note for AY material had a bearing
According to the AO of searched person), ordin
02-2020, he was within in respect of six asse search i.e. the year in w
The AO accordingly iss
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::4 ::

ase for issue of notice u/s 153C is issued fo om the above note that, according aterial ID marked ANN/PP/RA/LS/S-
Ramalingam [associate of Shri Anbu
NA-YOG/LS/S-56 seized from the pr ri Anbu had various cash loan transa assessee had repaid these cash lo so found, according to the AO, a /271E of the Act and that the source on. Though the specific assessment ertained to, quantum of entries pe ged cash loan transactions etc., wer e, the AO is found to have record
Ys 2014-15 to 2020-21 that, the a g on assessee’s total income for f the assessee (who was the same narily having regard to thedate of his juri iction to issuenotices u/s.
essment years precedingthe asses which the original searchtook place sued notices u/s. 153C of the Act

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush or A.Y. 2014- g to AO of the -30 seized from u] and material remises of Shri actions with the oans along with attracted penal e of repayment t year to which ertaining to the re not specified ded a common aforesaid seized all these AYs.
e as the AO of search i.e. 25-
153C of the Act sment year of (AY 2020-21).
t reopening six preceding assessment y those AY's were AYs 20
AY 2020-21 u/s.153C(2
the Act, the AO is note u/s.153C/143(3) of the 16 to 2020-21, in which loans to Shri Anbu foun the latter’s premises, by 6. It is noted that addition(s) by way of u
AYs impugned before us together. Hence, with repetition of facts; we result shall apply muta
2019-20 & 2020-21 as w
7. Briefly stated, the the course of search u marked ANN/KM/GNA- premises and loose pa from the premises of h these loose sheets hav
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::5 ::

years preceding the searchedassess
014-15 to 2019-20 and the AO also 2) of the Act. Post the issue of noti d to have completed the income-ta
Act by orders dated 31.03.2022 for h he made addition(s) on account o d mentioned in the impugned mate y way of unexplained monies u/s 69
the reasoning given by the AO f unexplained monies u/s 69Ais same s. Both the parties have also argued the consent of both the parties, take up AY 2015-16 to be the lea tis mutandis to AYs 2015-16, 2016
well.
e facts relating to the impugned dis pon Shri Anbu, certain loose pape
-YOG/LS/S-56 was found & sei apers document ID marked ANN/
his associate, Shri A Ramalingam.
ve been provided by the Revenue

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush sment year and o reopened the ice u/s 153C of ax assessments r the AYs 2015- of repayment of rial seized from A of the Act.
for making the e across all the d these appeals
, and to avoid ad case, whose
6-17, 2017-18, spute is that, in rs inter alia ID ized from his
/PP/RA/LS/S-30
The copies of in their paper- book at Pages 3 to 81
language, the correspon well. It is observed tha numerous entries/name appears to be a statem
Shri A Ramalingam in h noted to have submitte seized material ID ma holding it in custody fo statement recorded u/s that he was inter alia in industry out of his fi confronted with the seiz from the premises of Sh noted to only confirm th were obtained during included in seized mate
Later on, in post search recorded u/s.131 of the were posed regarding
Aravindhan, and his ans
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::6 ::

1A. Since these loose sheets were nding English translated copy has be at, the loose sheets contain severa es along with amounts mentioned ent of receipts and payments. It is is statement u/s.132(4) of the Act, ed that, he is unaware about the c arked ANN/PP/RA/LS/S-30 and tha or Shri Anbu. It is noticed that Sh s 132(4) of the Act had made a ge nvolved in providing finance to produ ilm distribution income. When, S zed material ID marked ANN/PP/RA/
hri A Ramalingam, in his Answer to hat, these material belonged to him the course of film financing who rial ID marked ANN/KM/GNA-YOG/B h enquiries, the statement of Shri A e Act dated 21-12-2020 in which sp the material seized from the pre swers are noted to be as follows: -

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush e in vernacular een provided as al scribblings of therein which observed that, for Q. No. 10 is contents of the at he was only hri Anbu in his eneral assertion ucers in cinema
Shri Anbu was /LS/S-30 found
Q no. 48, he is m and that, they ose details are B&D/S1 to S40. Anbu was again ecific questions emises of Shri

“Q No. 11 It me
Shri Aravindan is of those documen
Ans: The film dis to various parties
Q No. 12 Please e
Whenever I give in stamp paper a that date along distribution rights
Q No. 13 As you kept in the safe details advanced reflected in any o advanced the loa
Ans: Yes sir I acc get signatures my the actual cash signatures for my loans given by me
8. According to Shr related to loans given specific names of any p of certain cash transact signatures of parties fo their letterhead/stamp advance cash loans.
9. It is noted that, th
30 & ANN/KM/GNA-YOG amounts against the na
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::7 ::

eans the documents which are kept in saf s so important for you. Please state what i nts.
tribution agreements, documents relating s are kept in the safe custody of Shri Aravin elaborate about the loan details as mention loan to parties, I get the signatures from nd letterheads mentioning the amount of l the outstanding loan on that date. I s as collateral from few parties.
stated above the documents relating of loa e custody of Shri Aravindan. On analysis d by you, most of the loan transaction of the bank accounts maintained by you.
n mainly in cash. Please offer your explana cept there are cash transactions in my bus y parties in any amount I wish. The docum loan given and also the documents in y own safety as many parties are not return e.”
i Anbu, the details contained in t to several parties, but he didn’
persons. He also admitted that, the ions in his loan business and that, h or cash loans provided, or some co papers or collaterals from them, w he seized documents ID marked AN G/LS/S-56 inter alia contained cer ame ‘Dhanush’. The AO is noted to 3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush fe custody of s the content to loan given ndhan.
ned by you.
those parties loan given on receive film an given were s of the loan ns were not It shows you ation.
siness. Also I ments include which I got ning the cash these materials
’t mention any ey were notings he would obtain onfirmations on when he would
NN/PP/RA/LS/S- rtain notings of have tabulated the details of this nam order. According to AO, book of Shri Anbu whe transactions. The AO he the assessee because o view that, the entries in by Shri Anbu to people the assessee was also name of ‘Dhanush’ per assessee had availed ca tune of Rs.5,08,55,000/
way of unexplained mo assessee had objected found in loose papers f him, in absence of any however is found to h assessee by observing a “3.3.5 The asses acceptable for the 1) The denial of a and not backed b ii) Moreover, his belonging to the strengthens the ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::8 ::

me and corresponding amounts in t
, these loose sheets actually constit erein he meticulously recorded all eld that, the notings tabulated by h of the commonality of name. The n these seized materials related to belonging to Tamil Nadu Cinema i a part of the same industry, these rtained to him. The AO accordingly ash loan from Shri Anbu which wa
/- in AY 2015-16 and proposed to ad onies u/s 69A of the Act. It is obse to the same and contended that from third party premises cannot b tangible material to corroborate the have rejected the submissions pu as under: - ssee's contentions were duly considered e following reasons:
any transactions with Shri. G. N. Anbuchez by any logic or evidences.
name has appeared along with the nam
Tamilnadu Cinema Industry of the same p argument about the person being referr

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush the assessment tuted daily cash his daily cash im pertained to AO was of the loans advanced ndustry and as e notings in the y held that, the s repaid to the dd the same by erved that, the t mere notings be used against e same. The AO t forth by the and are not hian is vague mes of people period, which red to in the seized material.
information is rela
(iii) From the n explanation furni that the assessee and repayment of made during F.Y.
(iv) From the inc can be observed side and the exp the notebook. It balance and cash
This strengthens seized daily cash evident that the Anbuchezhian is attributes to be re
(v) From the abo have been reco meticulously. The view of the ab
Anbuchezhian sa provisions of Sec
Court in the Ca
(Supreme Court) authorities can in of the above, the above is not appl
(vi) The decision
Cause (A Regist distinguishable in the evidences fou
The entries foun accounts, mainta been logically ex of search. Hence, on the basis of ev
Further, the case from the fact th connected to Inco
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::9 ::

Hence, it is unmistakably conclude ated to the assessee only.
nature of entries in the seized materi shed by the author of the seized materia e has availed cash loan from Shri. G. N. A f loan to the tune of Rs. 5,08,55,000/- in c
2014-15 relevant to A.Y.2015-16. criminating material seized from G. N. Anb that the receipts have been recorded on th enditures have been recorded on the left- can also be observed therein that the tota h in hand has been arrived at the end of th the authenticity and legitimacy of the data h book of the financier, G.N.Anbuchezhian impugned seized material i.e. daily cash s not only self-explanatory and posses eckoned as primary evidence.
ve facts, it can be seen that the receipts a orded on day to day basis in the sei e day-wise/page-wise total was also foun ove, the incriminating material seized tisfies the meaning of "book of account c. 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Hon'
e decision relied on by the assessee in th icable to the facts and circumstances of his of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case tered Society) Vs. Union of India (394
n the case of the assessee, for the simple und were not simple loose sheets or arbit d in the seized materials were in the for ained systematically, on daily basis. The plained by the author of the entries, durin
, inferences are drawn not on the basis of vidences and the explanations furnished.
e laws relied upon by the assessee is di hat it relates to criminal proceedings n ome-tax Proceedings.

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush ed that the ials and the als it is clear
Anbuchezhian cash has been buchezhian, it he right-hand
-hand side of l debit, credit he each page.
a contained in . Hence, it is book of G.N.
sses all the and payments zed material d therein. In from G. N.
" as per the 'ble Supreme axmann 190
ses, the tax
On the basis he case cited s case.
e of Common
ITR 220) is e reason that trary notings.
rm of proper entries have ng the course surmises but istinguishable not any way

In this connection registered under the evidentiary reasonable doubt proving prepond principles laid dow to income tax p
Prevention of Cor
10. The AO according explanation as given commission] and bas probabilities, the assess transactions with Shri A by way of unexplained these cash loans in AY 2
11. Aggrieved by the before the Ld.CIT(A) w issued u/s.153C of the any incriminating mater thus held that, the AO u/s 153C of the Act, a On merits also, the Ld.
observing as under: -
“6.4.9
The un consideration. A Shri G. N. Anbuch
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::10 ::

n, it is held that the case referred to relate the Prevention of Corruption Act. Being a c value in such cases requires to be pro t. In the assessee's case, being a case of erance of the probabilities is sufficient.
wn in the above cited case law cannot be a proceedings as the decision was rendere rruption Act.”
gly held that, due to the nature of by Shri Anbu before ITSC [inte sed on the hypothesis of prep see is understood to have entered
Anbu and thus made addition of Rs monies u/s 69A of the Act towards
2015-16. order of the AO, the assessee pr who is noted to have held that the Act without a valid satisfaction no rial as mandated in provisions of Se lacked juri iction to validly initia nd accordingly quashed the assess
. CIT(A) held the addition to be un ndersigned has carefully examined the search u/s 132 of the act was carried ou hezhian and others on 05.02.2020. During

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush es to the case criminal case, oved beyond f civil nature,
The various pplied in toto ed under the entries and its rim settlement ponderance of into cash loan s.5,08,55,000/- s repayment of referred appeal notice(s) were ote and without ection 153C and ate proceedings sment order(s).
nsustainable by issue under t in the case the course of search, certain lo
(who happens to various transactio them is the appe appellant has rep various financial interest.

“It is submitted investigation was statement was r recording of a s
Financiers who practice of taking from the borrowe sheets, the Asses relating to the all go to prove that back.”

oose sheets maintained by Shri G. N. A o be the author of the narrations made ons entered with various persons / parties ellant. As per the seized material it was fo paid loan taken from Shri G. N. Anbuchezhia years under consideration by way of ca dent in the assessment order, other tha ere exists no other evidence corroborating loans taken. In this regard the appellant on upon this issue which is reproduced her d that no consequential search, surve s carried out in the hands of the Appellant recorded by the AO by way issue of s statement etc. The Appellant submits t advance huge loans in crores, have th g securities such as pro notes, property do ers. In the Appellant's case' except for the ssing Officer found and seized no other d leged transactions in the loose sheets. This t no such cash advances were either rece n undisputed fact that the documents seize may have a bearing upon the person from seized. In the event, if it were to trul f in respect of other person, the Authoriz k the search would have examined th on to such effect would have been ob
When this exercise has been omitted to be es that the addition was made on suspicion llant, when a huge loan is taken that t nder would have taken securities such a nts etc, from the borrowers. The search tea h corroborative evidences to conclusive s borrowed funds and repaid it with interest pellant during the course of assessment pr show cause notice issued has completely nsactions and has produced before the A statements etc and the AO has not made cenario the question to be answered is wh g the addition on the basis of the noting

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush
Anbuchezhian therein), the , one among ound that the an during the ash including an the loose the appellant has made a re as under.
ey or other t and also no summons for that all Cine he inevitable ocuments etc, e seized loose documents as s itself would eived or paid ed from third m whom such ly possess a zed Officers he Appellant tained from e undertaken, n. As brought oo in crores, as pro notes, am have not ely prove that t.
roceedings, in y denied the AO, books of any findings hether the AO
/ narration found in the loose is found appropr
292C of the Act cannot be extend like that of the A may possess val case of the searc same can be appl

e sheet which was seized from a third part riate to highlight that the benefit of pres is only with reference to the person sea ded to any other person other than the per
Appellant. Therefore, the contents of the ue based on presumption u/s 292C of th ched person and by no stretch of imaginat lied to facts and case of the Appellant.
well-established legal principle that a loose m a third-party premises, without any c terial on record, and without a findin anslated into actual transactions resulting in appellant, cannot be relied upon for the de pursuant to a Search and Seizure action ppropriate to bring on record the observat of K.P. Varghese 131 ITR 597 where i well settled rule of law that the onus of esta f taxability are fulfilled is always on the n of showing that there is no understate n the assessee would be to cast an almos m to establish the negative, namely tha ideration beyond that declared by him".
r, that the burden is on the Revenue to p o be taxed is within the taxing provisions a re propositions which are well settled by e of ParimisettiSeetharamamma v. CIT reiterates these propositions. This is ve t be discharged by revenue strictly. There s n tax payer to prove thenegative.
gh the burden of proof is not static, in pecially in search-related cases—the initial n this case, the appellant has discharge ttingthat he has not availed any cash loan y of cash. Presumptions requiring rebutta no discretion vested in the AO to reject th initial burden has been met. As evi r, the AO has not chosen to examine the a d cross verify the findings of the search.

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush ty premise. It sumption u/s arched and it rson searched loose sheets e Act, in the tion, does the e sheet found corroborating g that such n undisclosed e purpose of .
tions of Apex n it has been ablishing that Revenue. To ement of the st impossible t he did not rove that the nd there was the Supreme
T [1965] 57
ery important should not be n assessment onus lies on d that initial ns and repaid al were once he appellant's ident in the assessee u/s 6.4.17
It is si cross verify the f came to know ab
153C of the Act w the facts only up
The AO has mere made any effort evidence to show before jumping i ascertain the am with interest. In repayment alone observed in the loan along with in order. As evident carried out.
6.4.18
It may the AO was neith the same found t seized in the case
Appellant does n inference agains corroborative ev
Hon'ble Delhi Hig taxmann com 4
diary was seized containing entrie including the ass entries since the was it in handw other cogent mat said decision is s
AO has not referr
Appellant. As th corroborate that party which are p
6.4.19
A narra details cannot be absence of any c person.
Such unsubstantiated,u have any eviden unless corroborat
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::13 ::

gnificant that the Investigation Officer has findings of the search with the appellant. T bout the findings of the search only when t was served upon him. The appellant took c pon the receipt of the show cause notice f ely acted based on the documents seized, ts to bring on record any independent/
w that the alleged re-payments were ac nto any conclusion. In particular the AO mounts availed as loan so as to repay the n the absence of any such details, con e can only be a presumption.Further, assessment order that “source of repaym nterest needed verification” Para 3.1 of the t in the assessment order, no such verificat be appreciated that the said loose sheet re her seized from the premises of the Appe to be in the handwriting of the Appellant. S e of a third party which is not in the hand w not constitute adequate evidence to draw st the Appellant, in the absence of idence. This proposition has been laid d gh Court in the case of CIT Vs Sant Lal
432 (Del) , wherein itwas held therein t d in search of the premises of a third pa es of hundi transactions on behalf of va sessee, no addition could be made based diary was neither found from premises of riting of assessee and revenue failed to terial to link the assessee to the diary. The squarely applicable to the case of the App red to any cogent evidence applicable to th he AO has not referred to any cogent the entries made in the loose sheet seized purportedly the transactions made by the A ation made in a loose sheet by a third perso e used to fasten tax liability upon the pe orroborative evidence to attribute the entr seized material is liable to be unsupportedor unverified document, whi ntiary value in respect of the entries fo tive evidence is available which can provi

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush also failed to The appellant he notice u/s cognizance of from the AO.
and has not corroborative ctually made, has failed to e same along nsidering the the AO has ment of cash e assessment tion has been elied upon by llant nor was Such material writing of the any adverse f any other down by the [2020] 118
that where a arty allegedly arious parties d on the said assessee nor produce any e ratio of the pellant as the he case of the material to d from a third ppellant.
on with scant erson. In the ries to such a treated as ch does not ound therein, de necessary reliable basis for material have act
6.4.20
At this Hon'ble ITAT, J
[TS-5104-ITAT- the Hon'ble ITAT evidence in suppo document is ber respects, by stati
"For the sake of Departmental Rep fresh evidence th document No. 7
question now aris that document. W is bereft of nece transaction, natu figures. It may b respects as the minimum details the duty of the A the impugned d books of account or financial institu statements of co the inference ari
Such correlation speaking giving f out the nature of the transaction necessary to give and investigation arising from this d

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush in the seized he decision of apalWassan
202, wherein corroborative arly when the mplete in all f the learned d in accepting its is the bare ve. The moot n the basis of his document ownership of ciphering the omplete in all se to record memory. It is by correlating with regular uch as banks recording the in confirming harge of tax.
s capable of person to find ownership of tuation, it is s explanation ect inference merely on the a third party oborate such the decisions
07) 107 TTJ
[2018] 169
[2002] 82 ITD 8
ITD 298 (Cal) a 247 (All).
6.4.22
In part corroborate the e with a third pa regarding actual recipient named
ITAT, Mumbai he
Vs ITO in ITA N further evidence exchanged betwe evidence on reco sheet found in th third party. The under:
"In the present c of third party and proceedings, the money is paid. T evidence to prov merely harping u which cannot be to bring on mone bring further ev exchanged betwe not conduct any property instead purchasers of th proof of origin an source of the pur failed to prove th any form of evi jottings as conclu income from undi

85 (TM) IΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [20
ticular, it is of critical importance that the entries indicating payments in the seized m rty is available with specific reference transfer of money from the said third in the said entries in the seized material.
eld in the case of Riveria Properties Priv
No.250/MUM/2013 that the AO is requ on record to show that the money een the parties in a case where there ord to prove that on-money was paid exce he premise of a third party and admission relevant part of the said decision is re case on hand, except loose sheet found in d admission made by the third party in thei re is no other evidence on record to pr
The assessing officer, without brought on ve that on money is exchanged between upon the loose sheet and the third part considered as conclusive evidence against ey to tax as undisclosed income. The AO i vidence on record to show that actual o een the parties, but literally failed to do so.
y independent enquiry relating to the v d, merely relied upon the statement g e property, which is not correct. Further, nd destination of on money. The A.O failed rchasers as to how the money was arran he deployment of unaccounted money by idence. Under these circumstances, base usive evidence on money cannot be broug isclosed sources."
the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in kla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Commo iety) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 ta
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (19
borative evidence is essential to support rty premise. In order to properly appreciate r to the following extract from the decisio

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush
T [2000] 74
000] 67 TTJ e evidence to material found to the fact party to the . The Hon'ble vate Limited uired to bring was actually is no other ept the loose made by the eproduced as the premises ir assessment rove that on n record any the parties, ty admission, the assessee is required to on money is The A.O. did value of the given by the , there is no d to prove the ged and also the seller by ed on paper ght to tax as n the cases of on Cause (A axmann.com
954) 26 ITR the evidence e the issue, it on of Hon'ble

Apex Court in the 26ITR 775 (SC)
"As regards the s learned Solicitor- not fettered by te entitled to act on court of law, but that in making th the Act, the Incom make an assessm at all. There must assessment unde our opinion, been the case of Seth G

e case of Dakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs.
):
second contention, we are in entire agreem
-General when he says that the Income-t echnical rules of evidence and pleadings, a n material which may not be accepted as t there the agreement ends; because it is he assessment under sub-section (3) of S me Tax Officer is not entitled to make a pu ment without reference to any evidence or t be something more than bare suspicion to er section 23(3). The rule of law on this su n fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore H
Gurmukh Singh (supra)".
dent from the decisions cited above, thou ns of Evidence Act do not apply with the s proceedings, but the AO is not entitled to ake an assessment without referen al. It follows therefrom that addition cann corroborative evidence to validate the ent ed from a third party.
cussed supra, the seized material relied upo narrations contained in the loose sheets. Th nclusion solely on the basis of thisloose sh ctually repaid loan(s) availed by way of borative evidence to prove that the payme al have actually materialized and transfer o lace between the concerned parties.The to make any addition on the basis of s eized loose sheetsand therefore the addi he entries found in the loose sheets for the unsustainable.”
bythe Ld. CIT(A)’s action, the Rev assessee is found to have filed c
Ld. CIT(A) and raised additional ob ramed u/s 153C of the Act for the im

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush
. CIT (1954) ment with the tax Officer is and that he is s evidence, a equally clear
Section 23 of ure guess and any material o support the ubject has, in High Court in ugh it is true same rigor to make a pure ce to any not be made tries found in on by the AO he AO cannot heet that the cash. When ents noted in of money has ereexists no such entries ition(s) made e years under enue is now in ross objections bjections to the mpugned year.

ion of Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT, D ued that, the proceedingsinitiated u n satisfaction note dated 30.8.2022
sufficient reference to the incrimin f search. For this, the Ld. CIT, DR elhi High Court in the case of In 463 ITR 431). The Ld. CIT, DR fur u/s 153C have been validly in ent years viz., AYs 2014-15 to A ate of search to be 05-02-2020,
Section 153C by Finance Act, 2017
Circular No. 24/2015 dated 30.12.2
mmon satisfaction note recorded by ed Person’ and the ‘Other Person’ w ts, the Ld. CIT, DR submitted that, t just loose sheets or vague dumb nts showing the cash loan trans
Anbu with various parties, and f them. According to her therefor
IT(A) holding these notings to be ook us through the statements of Sh

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush
R, Smt. Sheila u/s.153C of the was valid in as nating material
R relied on the dian National rther submitted itiated for the AY 2020-21, by in light of the 7. The Ld. CIT,
015 to support y the AO, as the was the same.
, the impugned documents but actions of the the assessee, re, the findings unreliable, was hri Anbu, which was found placed at Pa had admitted that the s his business which are perspective, it does su assessee. The Ld. CIT, the ledgers, later on pre
Rule 9 report, in his ma at Pages 213 to 304
contained name of the a transactions with Shri A ITSC wherein Shri Anb loan business. He acco ought to be reversed an 15. Per contra, the supported the order of proceedings u/s 153C o the common satisfactio meet the criteria laid do v. Singhad Technica pointed out that, the AO seized material “belong
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::18 ::

ages 13 to 102 of Paper book, to seized materials reflected the cash e not offered for taxand hence, uggest that, he had advanced cas
DR filed before us additional evide epared and furnished by Shri Anbu, atters before the ITSC, copies of wh
4 of Paper Book-I, to show that assessee which evidenced the asses
Anbu. The Ld. CIT, DR also relied up u had offered substantial income f ordingly urged that the order of nd the AO’s order be restored.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee, S the Ld. CIT(A). On the validity of of the Act, he first submitted that, on note was general and vague an own by Hon’ble Supreme Court in t l Education Society (250 Taxm
O in his main satisfaction note had ed” to the assessee which was fact

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush o show that, he transactions of if seen in his h loans to the ence in form of , in his reply to ich were placed t these ledgers ssee’s cash loan pon the order of from such cash the Ld. CIT(A)
Shri Arjun Raj, f the impugned the contents of d that it didn’t the case of CIT man 225). He stated that the ually erroneous and that later on he
“pertained” to the asses
15 was reopened u/s 15
purported seized mate against the assessee du according to him, showe application of mind. He material was broad and transaction was mentio to be pertaining to the a had rightly held that condition precedent for 16. Shri Arjun Raj fu actually 7th and 8th yea had not validly invoked read with Section 153C to the Ld. AR, the refere
153C, ought to be the recording of satisfaction search i.e., 05-02-2020
even after considering
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::19 ::

had changed his tact and allege ssee. He further contended that, th
53C through this common satisfactio erial didn’t admittedly contain any ue to which no addition was made in ed that, the satisfaction note was re e further pointed that, the referenc sweeping and that no specific dates ned in the satisfaction note which assessee and thus according to him, the satisfaction note to be in v invoking powers u/s 153C of the Ac urther urged that, AYs 2015-16 to ar preceding the date of search an the powers under fourth proviso t of the Act to cover the extended pe ence to date of search, for the purp date of handing over of the seized n note i.e. 30-08-2022 and not the 0; for the purposes of Section 15
the amendment made by the Fina

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush ed that it only hough AY 2014- on note but the ything adverse n that AY, which ecorded without e to the seized s or amounts of were identified
, the Ld. CIT(A) iolation of the ct.
2016-17 were nd that, the AO o Section 153A eriod. According poses of Section d documents or original date of 53C of the Act, ance Act, 2017. The Ld. AR relied upon Court in the case of PC and this Tribunal in th
DCIT (ITA Nos. 797 &
The Ld. AR further subm form of ‘asset’ in the sa
AYs 2015-16 to 2016-1
of reopening the assess
Act was based on wron consequent impugnedor
17. On merits, suppo
Arjun Raj contended th sheets were never teste assessment proceeding scribblings found in the value. He pointed out th that the addition wa probabilities derived f impugned addition was statements of Shri Anb the impugned entries n
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::20 ::

n the decision rendered by the Hon
CIT v. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd. ( e case of M/s KSJ Infrastructur
& 798/Chny/2024) in support of mitted that, there was no mention o atisfaction note which had escaped
17 and, thus he argued that, the im sment for AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 u ng assumption of juri ictional fact rder, was bad in law for want of juris orting the order of Ld. CIT(A), th hat, the veracity of the entries foun ed by the AO independently before gs and the additions were solely e loose sheets which did not have a hat, the fact that the AO himself had as based on hypothesis of pre from the thirdparty material, sh made only on speculation. Taking u, he showed that, he was never c or did he specifically incriminate th

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush n’ble Delhi High
465 ITR 101) re Pvt Ltd Vs his contention.
f any income in assessment in mpugned action u/s 153C of the and hence, the iction.
e Ld. AR, Shri nd in the loose concluding the based on the any evidentiary d acknowledged ponderance of hows that the us through the confronted with e assessee and thus it was unsafe to scribblings under the no alone.
18. Thereafter, the Ld additional evidences fur were later on prepared further submitted that by Shri Anbu for the I material found in the contended that, the au ledger extracts has perspective, and the se settlement by the searc respondent assessee es of income in the hand proceedings didn’t esta sum, as the income had to him, Shri Anbu wit proceedings may have documents as his own not specifically identify
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::21 ::

take the assumption made by th omenclature “Dhanush” pertained t d. AR, Shri Arjun Raj vehemently o rnished by the Ld. CIT, DR in form o d and submitted by Shri Anbu be the subsequent ledgers which were ITSC cannot be equated as an ad course of search qua the asse thenticity and understanding of the to be examined from the sear ettlement of dispute before the in ched person would not automaticall specially in view of the fact that the ds of the searched person during blish/confirm the identity of the re d been quantified on an estimated b h a view to achieve quietus to t e quantified certain sum based undisclosed income, but his surre the assessee and was also not back

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush he AO that the to the assessee objected to the of ledgers which efore ITSC. He e manufactured missible seized essee. He also e entries in the rched person’s nterim board of ly implicate the e quantification the settlement ecipient of such basis. According the income tax on unreliable nder which did ked by evidence or confirmation from the justifying addition in th before us that, the evidentiary value and addition doesn’t warrant
19. The Ld. CIT, D submitted that, AYs 20
assessment years and t date of search i.e. 05-0
of CIT v. Jasjit Sing admissibility of the addi this Tribunal being the l as it has a decisive bea out that, M/s.Wunderb shareholder and Directo
Shri Anbu through ban name ‘Dhanush’ in the supported the AO’s ca assessee. According to t that, then the entries i company, then the onu
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::22 ::

e assessee, cannot be considered as he hands of the assessee. The Ld impugned third party seized m thus the order of the Ld. CIT(A t any interference.
R, Smt. Sheila Parthasarthy, in 015-16 to 2016-17 were within th that the reference date was to be ta
02-2020. In this regard, she relied h [2023] SCC Online SC 1265
tional evidences is concerned, she c last fact finding authority ought to a aring on the impugned issue. She bar Films P Ltd in which the as or had availed loans from the entitie nking channel which was also foun said loose sheets and thus, accord ase that, all other entries also pe the Ld. CIT, DR, if the assessee wan in seized material did not pertain us lies on the assessee to demons

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush s valid basis for . AR reiterated material lacked
A) deleting the her rejoinder e period of six aken as original on the decision
5. In so far as contended that, admit the same further pointed ssessee was a es belonging to nd noted in his ing to her, this ertained to the nted to contend to him but the trate that both the cash and bank e company. Upon conclu written submissions sum on record.
20. Having heard both submissions and the m take up the merits of th on the basis of the not sheets seized from the these notings pertaine obtained cash loans from there is no mention or dwelling into the facts, clearly stipulates that possession or control o presumed that such d provided in Section 29
document is found fro presumption is that the contents is presumed
Assessing Officer to reb
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::23 ::

ntries have been offered in the usion of the hearing, both the pa mmarizing their arguments, which h h the parties and after going throug material placed before us, we are i he impugned issue. In sum and sub tings found in the name of ‘Dhanu premises of a third party, Shri Anbu ed to the assessee and that the m Shri Anbu which he later on repai assumption of any interest on suc it is to be kept in mind that, Sec when inter alia any document is f any person in the course of a sea ocument belongs to such person.
2C(1)(i) of the Act. In other word m a person who is being searche e said document belongs to that p to be true qua the said person but that presumption and come to 3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush hands of the arties furnished ave been taken gh their written inclined to first bstance, the AO ush’ from loose u assumed that assessee had d. Surprisingly, h loans. Before tion 132(4A)(i) s found in the arch, it may be It is similarly ds, whenever a ed, the normal person and the . It is for the a conclusion or satisfaction that the doc some cogent material a arrives at the conclusio to someone else, and independent corroborat to take reliance for mak during the course of s
132(4A) will not be avai
21. In light of the abo is observed that, the ma
Anbu comprised of loos of several amounts a payments maintained by name ‘Dhanush’ & ‘Ac places. Since the name the assessee, these n assessee. There is no loan(s) etc. on these
‘Dhanush’ and amounts nature of these notings loose sheets alone. Tho
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::24 ::

cument pertains to somebody else.
available with the Assessing Officer n that the contents of such seized m surmise &conjecture cannot take ive evidence. Reason being, in case king addition on the basis of the do search at third party, then the pr ilable against the third party.
ove, we now revert back to the fac aterial seized from the third party p se sheets which are found to contai nd it appears be a statement o y the searched person. In these not ctor Dhanush’ found to be appear appearing in the entry correlates w notings were assumed to be per mention of ‘loan’ or ‘interest’ or sheets. The only thing appearing s corresponding thereto. Prima facie sare not discernible from a plain re ough these loose sheets and the 3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush
There must be r before he/she material relates e the place of e the AO wants ocuments found resumption u/s ts before us. It premises of Shri in daily notings f receipts and tings, there is a ring at various ith the name of rtaining to the r any terms of g in the name e therefore, the eading of these notings therein may be presumed to be be straightaway extend regard, as to the admiss third party premises, it laid down by the Hon'b
Registered Society) as under:-
(i) Entries in loose p under Section 34 of th the books of accoun occupation, that those
(ii) As to the value of shall not alone be suffi even if they are rele corroborative evidence to trustworthiness of t liability;
(iii) The meaning of ac loose sheets;
(iv) Entries in books charge any person with allowed to make evide own books behind the evidence of the transa ofsuch evidence no reli entries to support his c
(v) Even if books of ac business, the entries charge any person wit the books have been entries therein are co relying upon those ent facts;
(vi) The Court has to person in the absence the materialon the b irrelevant toconstitute
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::25 ::

e true qua Shri Anbu, but such presu ded to the assessee, as explained sibility of notings found in loose she is relevant to take note of the follo ble Supreme Court in case of Comm v. UOI (394 ITR 220) wherein it papers/sheets are irrelevant and not adm e Evidence Act. It is only where the entrie t regularly kept, depending on the na are admissible; entries in the books of account, such sta cient evidence to charge any person with l evant and admissible, and that they a . Even then independent evidence is neces hose entries which is a requirement to fas count book would be spiral note book/pad of account are not by themselves suffic h liability, the reason being that a man ca nce for himself by what he chooses to writ back of the parties. There must be indep action to which the entries relate and in a ief can be given to the party who relies upo claim against another; ccount are regularly kept in the ordinary co therein shall not alone be sufficient evid th liability. It is not enough merely to pro regularly kept in the course of business a orrect It is further incumbent upon the tries to prove that they were in accordan be on guard while ordering investigation of some cogent legally cognizable materia basis of which investigation is sought i evidence it is not admissible in evidence.

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush umption cannot above. In this ets seized from owing principles mon Cause (A was laid down missible s are in ture of atement liability, re only ssary as sten the but not cient to nnot be te in his pendent absence on such ourse of ence to ove that and the person nce with against l. When is itself

Court is thus found to have held th alone are not admissible as co
Even if such loose sheets are treat inary course of business, then also ent evidence to charge a third perso e person relying upon those entries with facts. Reason being, if the pr e seized material is extended to thir ent case, then any person for th e in any loose paper / diary at their plicate such other person for no fau are required to be substantiate or material which would show that th ee. In support of the foregoing p ecision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Co
423 ITR 1). In this case, the Dep ndi in the diary seized from the pr s allegedly contained entries of hun cluding assessee whose names wer s. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court case of CIT v. Mahabir Prasad G to have held that no addition can b

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush hat, the entries onclusive proof ted as books of entries therein on with liability.
s to prove that resumption qua rd party i.e. the hat matter can r sweet will and ult of the latter.
ed with some hey relate to or proposition, we ourt in the case partment relied remises of third ndi transactions re re-written in relying on its Gupta(ITA No.
be made in the hands of anassessee on search proceedings of a the assessee's premise cogent material or gath it pertained to the asse could have written anyo therefore such noting o statement of thesearch against the assessee.
23. Before us the Ld.
loose sheets actually person and the entries statement of Shri Anbu admitted to be involved she had placed at Pages in his statement u/s.132
alia involved in providin
He also later on admitte whoever he would provi acknowledgment, or so the Ld. CIT, DR, these
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::27 ::

n the basis of any diary seized durin a third party, since such diary was n and that thedepartment had failed her any corroborativeevidence to su ssee. The Court observed that thes one's name on his own sweet will on stand-alone alone basis along w hed person cannot be used as a re
CIT, DR argued that, the above e constituted books of accounts of stood corroborated against the as u recorded u/s.131(A) of the Act, w d in providing loans [Q Nos. 8 & 13]
s 13-45 of Paper Book. It is noticed
2(4) dated 07-02-2020 had stated t ng loans to persons in cinema indus ed in his statement u/s.131(1A) of t ide cash loans, he would obtain the me collaterals or blank cheques et statement(s) read in light of the n

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush g the course of neither found at to provide any ubstantiate that earched person in his diaryand with the biased eliable evidence entries found in f the searched ssessee, by the wherein he had , copy of which that, Shri Anbu that, he is inter stry [Q No.12].
the Act that, to ir signatures as c. According to otings found in the name of ‘Dhanush’
the cinema industry evi cash loans from Shri An before us, we observe t anything specific which used as tangible eviden upon by the Revenue a Anbu regarding his busi
Investigating Officer ha material seized from th borrowers and the natu corresponding answers identified and named s but there was no men entire statement, we do or any specific admissio to the assessee. Accord does not assist the case
24. We observe that t having any cash loan above, even Shri Anbu
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::28 ::

and the fact that the assessee wa idenced that, it was the assessee w nbu. Having gone through the state that, the statement(s) of Shri Anbu h incriminated the assessee or co nce against the assessee. The answe are noted to be general assertions ness as a financier. In fact, it is obs ad posed a series of questions on t he premises of Shri Anbu regarding re & purpose of such cash loan(s). H given by Shri Anbu, we find that several persons to whom he had a ntion of the assessee-Dhanush any o not find the mention of the name on by Shri Anbu that, he had given ding to us therefore, the statemen e of the Revenue.
the assessee at all times had unequ transactions with Shri Anbu. Fur had not incriminated the assessee

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush as belonging to who had availed ement(s) placed did not contain ould have been ers being relied s made by Shri served that, the he basis of the g the details of Having read the though he had dvanced loans, ywhere. In the of the assessee any cash loans nt of Shri Anbu uivocally denied rther, as noted in any manner.

The Revenue is found entries and the assesse appearing in the materi fact that, Shri Anbu wa industry. The Ld. AR ha solely on assumptions linking evidence, it was against the assessee. T persons by the name o used as a codename by with whom the assesse assessee is a well-know be a case that, certain name(s). Likewise, cert person(s) close to the obtained loans from Sh scenarios which could h given the name and r reason that Shri Anbu
Movie” in various entrie any direct evidence av notings, the impugned
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::29 ::

to have been drawing a linkage ee, solely based on the first name o ial seized from the premises of Shr as involved in providing loans to pe as rightly explained that, such link and surmise, and in absence of an s unsafe to assume these entries to The Ld. AR submitted that, there co of ‘Dhanush’ or for that matter, ‘Dh y the financier for someone else o ee may have worked with. He subm wn artist/actor and therefore it could n persons or producers had availe tain unscrupulous people may have assessee and acting on his behalf, hri Anbu. The Ld. AR played out s have led to noting(s) under the na eputation of the assessee and tha has used the term “Dhanush F.M es. According to him therefore, un ailable against the assessee linking addition was not justified. He furth

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush between these of the assessee ri Anbu and the eople in cinema kage was based ny independent o be sacrosanct ould be several hanush’ may be or any producer mitted that, the d also plausibly ed loans in his e claimed to be surreptitiously several possible ame ‘Dhanush’, at may be the M.S.& Dhanush nless there was g him to these her pointed out to us that, the search te made post-search enqu wherein he admitted distributors from Tamil whom he dealt with,
Dhanush. The Ld. AR th the AO’s assumption tha transactions with Shri A 25. He also brought t had clearly stated that obtain signatures or ack letter heads/stamp pap would advance cash loa
2020]. The Ld. AR ho scribblings, there was acknowledgment of the note or collateral give search, which would lin the statement of Shri A there was no such tang inferring these entries
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::30 ::

eam had interrogated Shri Anbu at uiries from him and that, in none o to having cash transactions with cinema and had also named severa
Shri Anbu had nowhere named hus contended that, this material a at, the assessee was involved in som
Anbu.
to our notice that, by Shri Anbu’s o t, wherever he would give cash lo knowledgments of the borrower or c pers or collaterals from the person ans [Q Nos.12 & 13 of his statemen wever pointed out that, apart fro no such other material viz., any assessee, or any blank cheque or a n by the assessee; etc. found in k these notings to the assessee. He
Anbu, as discussed in the foregoing ible evidence or material found whic against the assessee. In our co

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush length and also of his answers, h producers &
al persons with the assessee- aspect dispelled me cash loan(s) own admission, oans, he would confirmation on ns to whom he nt dated 21-12- om these loose y signature or any promissory the course of ence, in light of g, we find that ch would justify onsidered view therefore, the assumpti into several crores to rejected by the Ld. CIT(
Shri Anbu showed that, towards production or notice that, the assess income from acting in m in his individual capaci occasion for him to per note of these facts, and our considered view, th and demonstrated that unsafe to be relied up absence of any tangible
26. The Ld. CIT, DR h brought on record the r before the Settlement C his IBS order, by way
Though we have taken admission of such addit being the last fact find
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::31 ::

ion made by the AO regarding the be loan(s) repaid by the assesse
(A). The Ld. AR taking us through th according to Shri Anbu, he would a distribution of films. The Ld. AR ee was a professional artist derivi monies and that he had not produc ty and therefore there could not rsonally avail loans from Shri Anbu d the overall circumstances as discu he assessee had indeed made out a t these loose notings on stand-alo pon for making any addition(s) in corroborative material.
however to lend support the case o relevant submissions which were file
Commission/Interim Board of Settlem y of additional evidence at the tim n cognizance of the assessee’s obj tional evidence at this stage, howev ing authority, we considered it fit t

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush entries running ee, was rightly he statement of advance loan(s) brought to our ng professional ced any movies have been any u. Having taken ussed above, in a plausible case one basis were n his hands, in of the Revenue, ed by Shri Anbu ment (IBS) and me of hearing.
jections to the ver this Tribunal to examine the same, for the comple material, which have be I; we find that they are submitted by the R manufactured later on assessment and in com before the Income-tax reproduced the scribbli computerized ledgers to amounts in his own c income made at the tim
Arjun Raj, painstaking mentioned in the loose ledgers prepared later apparent discrepancies
Rs.2,00,00,000/- appea nowhere found in the lo
& Rs.5,00,00,000/- dat ledgers are also not a provided a detailed rec post-search ledgers pr entries in the loose shee
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::32 ::

eteness of the matters. Having een placed at Pages 214 to 304 o e also of no assistance to the Revenu
Revenue are found to have be n by Shri Anbu simply for the mpliance with his offer of undisclosed authorities. It appears that Shri An ngs/notings found on the loose she o arrive at peak balance(s) and has convenient manner to support the me of search and before the IBS. T gly took us through the dates sheets vis-à-vis what was entered on, and brought to our notice th s therein as well. For instance, aring on 06-06-2016 in the purpo oose sheets. Similarly, entries of Rs ted 06-04-2018 & 07-05-2014 me ppearing in the loose sheets. The conciliation which shows that, the repared later on itself didn’t reco ets/cash book. These factual discrep

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush perused these f Paper Book- ue. The ledgers een prepared/
quietus of his d income made nbu has simply eets by way of arranged these e disclosure of he Ld. AR, Shri and amounts in the so-called hat, there were , an entry of orted ledger is s.6,50,00,000/- entioned in the e assessee has entries in the oncile with the pancies pointed out by the Ld. AR sup unsafe to rely on such a is nothing contained in be considered as any assessee. The usage of one of the tables appea be pertaining to the ass pointed out that, Shri before the AO/Search loose notings in the na thus without there bein it would be unsafe to assessee.
27. At this juncture, w
Hon’ble Karnataka Hig
Sharma (159 taxma question that as to whe
1872 can be relied upo absence of any indepe
Courtheld that the ’loos
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::33 ::

ports the assessee’s contention tha alleged ledgers. Moreover, we also these ledgers or the order of the I y direct or corroborative evidenc f term ‘Dhanush’ in these prepared ring in the IBS cannot be ipso facto sessee. The Ld. Counsel, Shri Arjun
Anbu has not identified the asses
Team/IBS nor is there any averm ame of ‘Dhanush’ pertained to this ng any independent confirmation or simply assume that these notin we rely on the guiding principles la h Court in the case ofDCIT vs.
ann.com 179) which was alsose ether ‘loose sheets’ under the Indian n to make additionin the hands of a ndent corroboration. The Hon’ble K se sheets’ does notconstitute mater

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush at, it would be find that, there
IBS, which may ce against the ledgers and in be assumed to Raj has rightly see specifically ment that these s assessee and r corroboration, gs against the id down by the Sunil Kumar eized with the n Evidence Act, an assessee, in Karnataka High rial evidence in relation to a third pers
153C of the Act, holding
“22. The entire a documents, whic of entry' or as 'ev

son andtherefore set aside the not g it to bevoid. The relevant findings allegation is made out on the basis of loo h does not come under the ambit and sco vidence' under the Indian Evidence Act.
e aforementioned aspects, we have carefu by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to a eets by the respondent-Revenue. In the at paragraphs 16 to 18 of the judgment, i d approach is in accordance with good reaso ment with it. Applying the above tests, it al note books (MR 68/91 and 71/91) and t and MR 70/91) are "books" within the not the loose sheets of papers contained in R 73/91).
Supreme Court in the case of Common Cau to 282 of the judgment, has observed thus:
hed in law by the Hon'ble Apex Court tha typed entries and in loose form, not sh s of accounts regularly maintained by the ties, do not constitute material evidence.
the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the v the respondent/Revenue against the Assess tained in the diaries/loose sheets, are co the Hon'ble Apex Court. In that view of s issued under section 153C of the Act, b ies are contrary to law, which require to be s, as the same are void and illegal.”
that, the Hon’ble Bombay High Co hrani (108 taxmann.com 437) o pheld the order of the Tribunal ose papers seized from premise

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush ices issued u/s are as follows:
ose sheets of ope of 'books ully examined acceptance of case of V.C.
t is observed oning and we must be held the two spiral e meaning of the two files use (supra) at :
at a sheet of hown to form e assessee or Following the view that the see based on ntrary to the f the matter, based on the e set aside in ourt in the case on similar facts l holding that es of a third party,which were not could not be relied up hands of the assessee. T
“1. This Appeal
Income Tax Appe consideration;
"Whether on the the Hon'ble ITAT payment for purc not found from t u/s. 132(4A), u/s appreciating that premises of one for purchase of s amounts of cash made in the case his share of ca evidence is also r assessee?"
2. The Responde firm. The Income operation during of loose papers partners and on p such addition in c documents nowh persons, no enqu or the developer.
papers were not c
3. It can thus be evidence on reco were not clear a question of law th
29. Useful reference
Bench of this Tribun
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::35 ::

corroborated with any other evide on by the Revenue to justify an The relevant judgment is reproduce is filed by the revenue to challenge the ellate Tribunal. Following question is prese facts and in the circumstances of the cas was justified in deleting the addition on ac chase of shops by holding that the seized the premises of the assessee and hence s. 292C of the IT Act, 1961 are not applic t the seized papers were found during s of the partners Sri LaxmichandRohira of th shops by the firm and in the said seized paid by all the partners are noted and e of the said partner Shri LaxmichandRohi sh payment has become final, and the relevant for assessment of other partners, nt-Assessee is an individual. He was the p e Tax Department had carried out search which certain loose papers were collected.
additions were made in the hands of t protective basis on the hand of the firm. W case of the present assessee the Tribunal n here show that any payments were ma iry or verification was made with the seller
. Tribunal therefore concluded that entries corroborated with any other evidence on re e seen that the entire issue is based on ap ord. The Tribunal noted that the loose pa nd not corroborated by any independent herefore arises. Income Tax Appeal is dism may be made to the decision of al at Panaji in the case of A 3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush enceon record, addition in the d hereunder:- judgment of ented for our e and in law, count of cash papers were presumption cable, without search in the he same firm d documents, assessments ra relating to erefore, that including the partner of the h and seizure
On the basis the individual
While deleting noted that the ade by same r of the shops s of the loose ecord.
ppreciation of apers entries evidence. No issed.”
the coordinate
Abhay Kumar

Bharamgouda Patil v survey was conducted diary was found contain the assessee. The surve stated that, he had rece noted in his diary. On were not admissible as surveyed person was n brought on record anyo his bald allegation agai that the assesseecannot onus was onthe surve material / evidenceon sheets did not belong to did actuallyreflect unacc findings are noted to be “22. Now the que whether the evide statements given assessee and the support the case undisclosed incom
23. We shall now has given explana statements given assessee have bee
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::36 ::

v. ACIT (96 taxmann.com 377).
upon a finance brokerfrom whose ning certain notings interalia includin eyed person had alsoincriminated th eived monies incash from the asses appeal, theTribunal held that, thes evidenceand also that the stateme notsufficient to justify the evidence other credible or corroborative evide nst the assessee. The Tribunal inte t be expected to prove a negative fa eyed person / Revenue to bring record to show that the notings o the surveyed person but the asses counted cash transactions as allege e as follows:
estions that arise for our consideration, in nces found during the course of survey opera by Shri S.K. Terdale could establish any link amounts shown against his name in the d e of the Assessing Officer that the mon e of the assessee?
examine the Statements given by Shri S.K ations on the entries found recorded in the by him. He has stated that the moneys rece en recorded against the name of the assessee

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush
In this case, a e possession a ng the name of e assessee and ssee, which was se loose sheets nt given by the as he had not ence to support er alia observed act and that the g corroborative on these loose ssee and that it d. The relevant our view, is ations and the k between the iary and they ney represent
K. Terdale. He e diary in the eived from the e in the diary.

However, a carefu would show that h that the moneys w has recorded the s identify the person which the money received money th has been sent by against the name persons who have employees or any possible to state corroborated. We material on record the assessee has diary and also did have also notice statements by brin absence of any m
Terdale, in our vi rightly pointed ou prove a negative f
……
24. Now we shal human conduct an amount recorded period of three transactions of hi some kind of ac assessee makes p acknowledgment f to the assessee, h there is no such a with regard to th ensure that no acknowledgment/r a person could acknowledgment o
We notice that th document of ackno in the form of acknowledgment f does not satisfy th
…..
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::37 ::

ul perusal of the statements given by Shri he has not ever met the assessee at all. He ha were sent by the assessee through some pe same against the name of the assessee. Even ns who brought the money to him or the den were brought. Thus it is seen that Shri S.K hrough some persons and they have stated th y the assessee. Accordingly he has record e of the assessee. If Shri S.K. Terdale could e brought money and if those persons happ y other related persons of the assessee, th that the statements given by Shri S.K. T also notice that Shri S.K.Terdale could not br d to substantiate his statements. We have als denied the transactions recorded against his not accept the statements given by Shri S.K ed that Shri S.K. Terdale could not sub nging any other credible or corroborative evid material to substantiate the statements given iew, the same cannot be used against the ut by ld A.R, in our view, the assessee is b fact, which is not permissible under the law.
l examine the impugned transactions unde nd human probabilities. As noticed earlier, th against the name of the assessee was Rs.8, years though various installments, In ca gh magnitude, a prudent person would alw knowledgment for the payments made, i.
ayment to Shri S.K. Terdale, the assessee w from him and when Shri S.K.Terdale returns he would have got acknowledgment from the acknowledgment, then there bound to be so he quantum of money transacted and henc such difference should arise, usually, s record shall be maintained. Under practical c insist on repayment of money only if s or evidence is available in order to bind the he Survey operations did not bring on rec owledgment/receipts. Hence the absence of a receipts issued by the recipient or in for money transactions of high magnitude, he test of human conduct and human probabi

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush
S.K. Terdale as only stated ersons and he n he could not nominations in K. Terdale has hat the money ded the same d identify the pen to be the en it may be Terdale stood ring any other so noticed that s name in the K. Terdale. We bstantiate his dences. In the n by Shri S.K.
assessee. As eing asked to er the test of he aggregate,
,85 lakhs in a se of money ways insist for e., when the would have got s back money e assessee. If me difference ce in order to ome kind of circumstances, some kind of e other party.
ord any such any document the form of in our view, lities.

examine as to whether the presumption pre the case of the AO. We have noticed that the ey operation is prescribed in sec. 292C of th of account and other evidences found during resumed to belong to the person who has b are true. Hence it is the responsibility of t recorded therein are true. As contended by ld be used against the person who has been gainst others. Hence it is the primary respon xplain the nature of documents/books of acc therein. The presumption prescribed in mption.
The question that arises is discharged its responsibility to prove that the oticed earlier, the Chairman of the socie orance about the diary and he has stated t ned by Shri S.K. Tardale. Hence Shri S.K.
regard to the diary and he has simply sta ved from the persons named in the diary, corroborative material to support his statem could produce two persons and they have a meaning thereby, the society/bank can be with regard to those two persons. We have no ied/disowned the transactions and has also ven by Shri S.K.Terdale, In this kind of situa the Society/S.K. Terdale to show that the society was right. We have noticed ear ele could not substantiate the statements give ove that the assessee was wrong. Hence, in hri S.K.Tardale could not be said to have su n respect of the assessee. As observed earlie the assessee to prove a negative fact. The l argument, also submitted that the unexpla sed in the hands of society/bank as unex the Act, meaning thereby, the society/bank h nitial onus of proof placed upon its shoulders same analogy, it can also be said that the charge the initial burden of proof in respe the name of the assessee, since the asse ements so given by Shri S.K. Terdale. Furt
S.K. Terdale has not met the assessee and a with the persons who brought money. Hence cannot take the support of the statements e the same has not been substantiated.

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush escribed under e presumption he Act, as per the course of been surveyed hat person to d A.R, the said n subjected to nsibility of the count and the sec, 292C is whether the e transactions ety/bank has that the diary
. Tardale was ated that the but could not ment. Shri S.K.
also owned up said to have oticed that the not accepted ation, it is the assessee was rlier that the en by him and our view, the bstantiated or er, it may not ld D.R, during ained deposits xplained cash has also failed u/s 68 of the e society/bank ect of money essee has not ther, we have also could not we arc of the given by Shri

e ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision
High Court in the case of Miss. Lata Mange ase, the ITO came across a sort of a ledger m s Vasu Films of Madras containing certain e by the Income Tax authority from the pre
In the diary, some amount was written as "
ten as "B" against the name of the asse ed from Mr. Vasudev Menon, Managing pa
Mr. C.S. Kumar, Firm's Bombay manager, th ained by them as the letter "W" would mea uld mean "Black". The assessee was given a these persons. Thereafter, the Assessing Off ded in the diary and came to the conclu cealed income. Accordingly, he made addition ontended on behalf of the assessee that ent authorities had relied, merely created suspi ave accepted payments in black but it did not nal, after appreciating piece of evidence, he evidences were not sufficient to prove e he assessee could be said to have received m not pass a receipt. Accordingly the Tribuna the AO. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court h e Tribunal. In our view, this decision support
. The entries recorded in the diary were diffe orded in the regular books of account of the ositors noted in diary were not found in the Society. Before income tax authorities, the nly its regular books of accounts and it co diary. Even though Shri S.K. Terdale has n the diary, he could not bring any material to he Chairman of the Society or any other high ny knowledge about the entries made in th accepted the statements of Shri S.K. Terdal the failure of the assessee to avail cross-exa ntentions of the ld A.R that there was no re xamination, since the assessee was not requ ct. Hence, for the detailed reasons, disc aphs, we are of the view that none of t of the Assessing Officer.”
he decision of this Tribunal at Pune nwal v. TRO (47 taxmann.com addition(s) on the basis of noting

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush n rendered by eshkar 97 ITR maintained by entries, which emises of the W" and some essee. In the rtner of Vasu he above said n "white" and an opportunity ficer accepted sion that the ns. Before the tire evidences icion that the t take place of came to the even a single money in black al deleted the as upheld the ts the case of erent from the e Society, i.e., regular books society could ould not have explained the o substantiate her authorities he diary. The le. The ld D.R amination. We equirement to uired to prove ussed in the the evidences e in the case of 293) wherein gs found in the name of the assessee,
This Tribunal held that, of any transaction betw evidence was found to amount, no addition co loose papers found duri name of assessee. Th follows:-

“5.3 According to us, justified in the facts an earlier, during the cou documents found on th the case of the assess of Rs. 4.80 Crores and Runwal". Apart from assessee had actually entered into any tran record to suggest that Dhariwal Group. In th same, it could not be p were the income of th the consistent stand o name Pradeep Runwal that the said notings p to how, in the absence has assumed that the while the assessee ha
Assessing Officer has Dhariwal Group has a Hence, simply because does not mean that th
Since no evidence wa between the assesse corroborative evidence said amount, no additi papers found during t against the name of th

in the course of search conducted since no evidence was found relati ween assessee and 'D Group' and n suggest that assessee had actually ould have been made merely on ba ng search proceedings in case of 'D e relevant findings taken note of the additions made by the Assessing Office nd circumstances vis-à-vis of the assessee. A urse of search in the case of Dhariwal Grou he basis of which the addition u/s 69A has be ee are in the form of two loose papers where d Rs. 30 lacs were noted against the name "M this, no evidence has been found to sugge y received the said amount or that the as saction with Dhariwal Group. There is no e t the assessee has previous business relatio e absence of any documentary evidence to presumed that the amounts reflected in the lo he assessee received from Dhariwal Group.
of the assessee that there may be many per l in Pune and there was no specific evidence pertained to the assessee. Hence, it was not e of any other corroborative details, the Asses amounts reflected the income of the assess s no business dealings of his with Dhariwal not brought on record any evidence to s admitted that the amounts were paid to th e the name of the assessee is noted on the se he addition could be made in the hands of th as found relating to the existence of any ee and Dhariwal Group and in the absen e to suggest that the assessee had actually r ion could be made merely on the basis of not the search proceedings in the case of Dha he assessee.
u/s 132(4A) is available only in respect of r is seized. It could not be applied against a 3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush d on ‘D’ Group.
ng to existence o corroborative y received said sis of noting in Group' against f by us, is as er were not As discussed up, the only een made in ein amounts
Mr. Pradeep est that the ssessee had evidence on ons with the suggest the oose papers
It has been rsons of the e to suggest justified as ssing Officer see himself,
Group. The uggest that e assessee.
eized papers he assessee.
transaction nce of any received the ting in loose riwal Group the person third party and hence, no addition third party. The presu person from whose p person whose name ap

n could be made on the basis of the evidence umption u/s. 132(4A) could be used only remises the documents are found and not ppears in the seized papers.
addition has been made on the basis of the Group and thus, the presumption u/s. 132(4A assessee since no incriminating documents f Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974]
as made in the hands of the assessee on the of third persons. Hon'ble Bombay High Cou ot be made only on the basis of the notings i facts of the present case are covered by the (supra). It is a settled legal position that the ourt is binding on all authorities below it.
Assessing Officer on the loose papers is not uestion of making any addition is not just oborative evidence to that effect.
e to the above, the learned Authorized Rep sessing Officer was not justified in making th visions of section 114 of the Indian Eviden
Officer has referred the aforesaid section w presume that the evidence which could be oduced be unfavourable to the person who w tion this rule applies to the cases wherein it i at a particular evidence or document was in xample, an owner of a land may well be exp
2 extract of the said land in order to check w for agricultural purposes. In the present he Assessing Officer are not applicable, the documents. The case of department is that zed paper found with the Dhariwal Group in ceived the amount, therefore, the burden w stablish the same. The reliance placed on the n Evidence Act is misplaced.
it has been consistent stand of the assess business relations whatsoever with the Dhar e noting on paper with the name 'Pradeep Ru vidence in this regard against the assesse the assessee has not entered into any trans one certainly could not expect the assesse dence to suggest that it has not entered int his books of account which have already b sessing Officer. Hence, the Assessing Offic eliance on the provision of section 114 of bmitted on behalf of assessee that the Asses aking the addition by relying on the provision ence Act which states that there is a presu ced before the court as record of evidence a tand of the assessee is that in the case o

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush e found with against the against the documents
A) could not were found
97 ITR 696
basis of the rt held that n the books e decision of e decision of . Thus, the t justified at tified in the presentative he additions ce Act. The which states and is not withholds it.
s evident or n possession pected to be whether the t case, the assessee is the amount dicates that was on the e provisions see that the riwal Group.
unwal, there ee. In such saction with ee to be in to any such een verified cer was not the Indian ssing Officer ns of section mption that are genuine.
of assessee, document produced w amounts were writte earlier, there may be m any other corroborativ be inferred that it belo
……
5.14 We find that in A of 2008, dated 26-7-20
……
6. Similar view has b
Appeal No.988 (PN) of is available only again found and not against against the third pers him. In such a situat addition in question in that the addition made directed to be deleted decided in its facts an such.”

as merely in the form of a rough noting whe n against the name 'Pradeep Runwal'. As many people of that name in Pune and in the ve evidence to that effect. In such a situatio ongs to the assessee.
ACIT v. Thakkar Developers Ltd. [IT Appeal N
010, ITAT in paras 3 and 4 held as under:—
een taken by ITAT, Pune in ACIT v. Amit D f 2011, dated 22-4-2013] that presumption u nst the person from whose possession the d t the third person. In the absence of clinchin son as stated above, no action could be ta tion, the Assessing Officer was not justifie n assessee's case. In view of above, we are e by the Assessing Officer is not justified and . It is pertinent to mention here that this ca d circumstances; it cannot be applied to oth had also pointed out that, loan(s) ha ms P. Ltd., in which the assessee ough banking channel and thus in h he veracity of the cash notings. Th
M/s.Wunderbar Films P. Ltd.,
Anbu, which are duly accounted in ugh proper banking channel. He als aken loan through banking channel corded in the books. The Ld. AR has se M/s.Wunderbar Films P. Ltd.
with Shri Anbu cannot raise a pres sessee that, he had taken cash-lo repayment has not been recorded

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush erein certain s discussed e absence of n, it cannot o. 581 (PN)
D Irshid [IT u/s. 134(4A) document is ng evidence ken against ed to make of the view the same is ase is being her cases as ad been availed was a Director er opinion, this he Ld. AR also had business its books and o asserted that from Shri Anbu s rightly pointed
/assessee had sumption to be oans from Shri d in his books.

According to us, these suspicion, which could investigation, but mere impugned entries deno assessee-individual in assessee. A suspicion h corroborative evidence clearly stated that acknowledgments or c persons whom he wo brought on record any assessee or M/s.Wunde wants us to presum
Ltd./assessee had avail is found to precarious, i is rejected. In our co probed and investigate obtained some indepen also allowed an opport making the impugned a to have been made by on surmise and assump
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::43 ::

e contemporaneous facts may hav have been a cause for further v e suspicion cannot be a ground to oted loans which were taken and cash, to make addition in the however strong it may be, has to b
. As we have observed earlier, S he would obtain certain confirmation on letterheads or c uld advance cash loans. The Rev such evidence which was found i rbar Films P. Ltd. Hence, the linkag me merely because
M/s.Wunder ed loan through banking channel fr n absence of any corroborative evid nsidered view therefore, the AO d further, confronted Shri Anbu w ndent corroboration, and thereafte tunity to the assessee to cross-ex addition. However, no such effort/ex the AO. Rather, he is found to hav tions, which cannot be countenance

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush ve give rise to verification and o hold that the repaid by the hands of the e supported by Shri Anbu had signatures or ollaterals from venue has not n the name of ge which Ld. DR rbar
Films
P.
rom Shri Anbu, dence, and so it ought to have ith the entries, er should have xamine, before xercise is found ve simply acted ed.

been brought to our notice that, th nder different acronyms of ‘Dhan ailed through banking channel by eason, the assessment(s) of M/s.W ened and completed by the same A nd that, no adverse view was taken tions(s) with Shri Anbu forming pa
. As noted earlier, M/s.Wunderbar F production and distribution of movie s a professional artist deriving in Ld. AR has rightly averred that, wh view against M/s.Wunderbar Films business transactions whose entrie e acronyms of ‘Dhanush’ in the n it was unjustified on the AO’s ssee-individual had taken cash loa any cogent corroborative material o light of the aforesaid facts as well, d to be made by the Ld. DR between ies of cash notings, on the basis o bar Films P. Ltd had transactions th
, is found to be unsafe and is thus re

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush e entries found nush’ inter alia
M/s.Wunderbar
Wunderbar Films
AO u/s 153C of n in the light of art of the same
Films P. Ltd.was es and that the come from his hen the AO did s P. Ltd., with es/notings were e same loose part to simply an(s) from Shri on record which , the purported n the assessee- f the fact that, hrough banking ejected.

facts discussed above, it is notice f several crores of cash loans a he basis of notings found in loos ses of a third party, i.e. Mr. Anbu explicit and categorical denial that borrowed from Shri Anbu and also bu specifically incriminating the a these given facts, the onus did lay o se that, the notings found in the na related to him, which he is found to personally examine Shri Anbu qua t to make any independent enquirie d to have simply assumed that, the ee. Also, the additional evidence bro t assist their case. In our considere the impugned seized material to be dition impugned before us. Our view is Tribunal at Hyderabad in in case d. v. Dy. CIT (52 SOT 178)whe held as under:- for addition is only note book/loose slips are unsigned documents. The Assessing O

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush d that, the AO availed by the se papers/book u in this case; t no cash loans there being no ssessee.In our on the Revenue me of assessee o have failed to a these notings es on this issue.
e notings ought ought on record d view, the Ld.
e unreliable and w finds support of Nagarjuna erein in similar s. These note fficer has not established nexu actual/receipt of in course of search addition can be m circumstantial evi and bank entries, material available.
found as there is accrual of interest documents/note b show that the ass the note book/dia by other evidence admittedly is a p whose names ther recorded and then assessee and he instant case, und found in the note such entire addi uncorroborated w search is not poss
34. In view of the ab of the Ld. CIT(A) deletin grounds raised by the R
35. Since we have alr the impugned addition
Revenue as well as the validity of the proceedi academic, is not being open.
36. Since the facts consideration, being AY
ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::46 ::

s between the note book loose slips nterest. The note book/loose slips seized fou is a dumb document having no evidentia made in the absence of corroborative materi dence in the form of promissory notes, loa the addition is to be made on that basis to . The assessee is not expected to explain the no evidence other than note book/loose s t. It is held no addition can be made on the b book/loose slips in the absence of any othe sessee has carried on money lending busines ry/loose sheets are required to be supported e and are also include the statement of a party to the noting and statement from al re on the note book/loose slips and their stat n such statement undoubtedly should be conf has to be allowed to cross examine the p doubtedly no statement from the parties w book/loose slips has been brought to the tion in the hands of the assessee on writings in the loose papers found during t ible."
ove, we see no reason to interfere ng the addition(s) impugned before
Revenue are dismissed.
ready upheld the order of the Ld. C
(s) on merits, the legal grounds cross objections of the assessee wit ings initiated u/s.153C of the Act g separately adjudicated and is a and circumstances in the lea
Y 2015-16 in ITA No.3188/Chny/202

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush with accrual und during the ary value, no ial. If there is an agreement the extent of e loose papers lips regarding basis of dumb er material to ss. Nothing on d/corroborated a person who l the persons tements to be fronted to the arties. In the whose names notice and as the basis of the course of with the order us. Hence, the CIT(A) deleting raised by the th regard to the having become accordingly left d case under 24 is analogous to the appeals of the 2020-21 in ITA Nos.3
above in the case of I apply mutatis mutandis
20 & 2020-21 as well.
37. In the result, all of the assessee are dism

Order pronounced (जगदीश)
(JAGADISH)
लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT
चेई/Chennai,
दनांक/Dated: 30th June, 20
TLN
आदेश क ितिलिप अेिषत/Cop
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chenn
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF

ITA Nos.3188 -
CO Nos
(AYs 2
Kas
::47 ::

Revenue for AYs 2016-17, 2017-
189 to 3192/Chny/2024, our dec
ITA No. 3188/Chny/2024, for A.Y.
s to the appeals for AYs 2016-17, 2
the appeals of the Revenue and C missed.
d on the 30th day of June, 2025, in C T MEMBER
(एबी टी.
(ABY T. VA

याियक सदय/JUDI
025. py to:
nai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.

3192/Chny/2024 &
s.22 - 26/Chny/2025
2015-16 to 2020-21) thoori Raja Dhanush
18, 2019-20 &
cision rendered
2015-16 shall 2017-18, 2019- ross-Objections
Chennai.
/-
वक
)
ARKEY)
ICIAL MEMBER