Loading judgment…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs GOPU RAJAGOPAL, CHENNAI | BharatTax

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. GOPU RAJAGOPAL, CHENNAI

ITA 1811/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)24 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

A search operation on SRS Mining Group revealed a diary with pencil scribblings indicating Rs.11.50 crores in on-money payments related to a real estate project. The assessee, an authorized signatory for the developer LLP, initially admitted receiving Rs.14.80 crores (including the Rs.11.50 crores for AY 2017-18) in a Section 132(4) statement, offering it as additional income. However, he later retracted this statement, claiming duress, and the developer LLP confirmed that the project bookings were cancelled and payments refunded. The Assessing Officer added Rs.11.50 crores under Section 69A, which the CIT(A) deleted.

Held

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the third-party diary notings lacked corroborative evidence and were a "dumb document," insufficient to sustain the addition, especially since the property transaction never materialized. It held that the assessee's Section 132(4) statement, validly retracted and made under alleged duress, could not be relied upon, and the Revenue failed to discharge its onus of proving the income in the hands of the 'right person'.

Key Issues

Whether an addition under Section 69A can be sustained solely based on uncorroborated third-party diary notings and a retracted statement, especially when the alleged underlying transaction did not materialize and the addition was questioned for being in the hands of the wrong person.

Sections Cited

69A, 131, 132, 132(4), 132(4A), 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 05.12.2024Pronounced: 28.02.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue& Cross-Objection preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Chennai- 19, dated 30.04.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short ‘AY’)

2017-18.

1. /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal :: 2 ::

At the outset, the At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that there Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of ‘65’ days in filing of ’ days in filing of Cross-Objection. Since assessee ince assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, prevented by sufficient cause, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee prayed for Ld.Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any donation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any donation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any serious objection and hence, we objection and hence, we condone the delay of ‘65’ days and s and proceed to adjudicate the Cross-Objection Objection on merits.

3. The Revenue has raised the following legal grounds: The Revenue has raised the following legal grounds:

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law.

it was gathered that each of the three (3) partners o it was gathered that each of the three (3) partners of the SRS Mining f the SRS Mining Group had booked an apartment in project ‘One Crest’, Chennai, which Group had booked an apartment in project ‘One Crest’, Chennai, which Group had booked an apartment in project ‘One Crest’, Chennai, which was being developed by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP for which they was being developed by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP for which they was being developed by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP for which they had made payments aggregating to Rs.11.50 crores. Accordingly, a had made payments aggregating to Rs.11.50 crores. Accordingly, a had made payments aggregating to Rs.11.50 crores. Accordingly, a consequential search action was cond consequential search action was conducted upon the assessee who was ucted upon the assessee who was one of the authorized signatories signatories of M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP and of M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP and his statement was also recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. It is noted that, his statement was also recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. It is noted that, his statement was also recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. It is noted that, the assessee in his Answer to Q No. 17 had admitted to have received the assessee in his Answer to Q No. 17 had admitted to have received the assessee in his Answer to Q No. 17 had admitted to have received Rs.14.80 crores from Shri Sekar Reddy on behalf of the LLP by way of on rores from Shri Sekar Reddy on behalf of the LLP by way of on rores from Shri Sekar Reddy on behalf of the LLP by way of on- monies towards the apartments booked by the three (3) partners, out of monies towards the apartments booked by the three (3) partners, out of monies towards the apartments booked by the three (3) partners, out of which Rs.3.30 crores was received in earlier FY 2015 which Rs.3.30 crores was received in earlier FY 2015-16 and Rs.11.50 16 and Rs.11.50 crores was received in relevant FY 2016 crores was received in relevant FY 2016-17, which he is noted to have s noted to have offered to tax by way of additional income. offered to tax by way of additional income.

In light of the above, the AO is noted to have observed that, the In light of the above, the AO is noted to have observed that, the In light of the above, the AO is noted to have observed that, the assessee’s retraction was an after on was an after-thought and that when it was it was recorded initially (his original statement his original statement), it was given without any influence , it was given without any influence, but later in collusion with partners of M/s SRS Mining, he had retracted the later in collusion with partners of M/s SRS Mining, he had retracted the later in collusion with partners of M/s SRS Mining, he had retracted the statement without any valid reason. The AO, therefore, on the basis of statement without any valid reason. The AO, therefore, on the basis of statement without any valid reason. The AO, therefore, on the basis of the original statement of the assessee and the material seized from the the original statement of the assessee and the material seized from the the original statement of the assessee and the material seized from the premises of M/s SRS Mining held tha premises of M/s SRS Mining held that the assessee was in receipt of t the assessee was in receipt of monies of Rs.11.50 crores which he added u/s 69A of the Act. On appeal monies of Rs.11.50 crores which he added u/s 69A of the Act. On appeal monies of Rs.11.50 crores which he added u/s 69A of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) was pleased to delete the said addition. Aggrieved by the the Ld. CIT(A) was pleased to delete the said addition. Aggrieved by the the Ld. CIT(A) was pleased to delete the said addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. The assessee is noted to have filed cross objections supporting the action of is noted to have filed cross objections supporting the action of is noted to have filed cross objections supporting the action of /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal the Ld.CIT(A) on certain legal grounds, which have already been noted the Ld.CIT(A) on certain legal grounds, which have already been noted the Ld.CIT(A) on certain legal grounds, which have already been noted supra.

Assailing the action of Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. DR has argued that, si Assailing the action of Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. DR has argued that, si Assailing the action of Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. DR has argued that, since seized material ANN/KGAR/MPKSSR/B&D/S seized material ANN/KGAR/MPKSSR/B&D/S-2 revealed that Rs.11.50 Crs. evealed that Rs.11.50 Crs. has been paid to the assessee by the partners of M/s.SRS Mining for has been paid to the assessee by the partners of M/s.SRS Mining for has been paid to the assessee by the partners of M/s.SRS Mining for booking flats in project “one Crest” booking flats in project “one Crest”, a real estate project of roject of M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP of which assessee was the authorized signatory of which assessee was the authorized signatory, the veracity of the said seized material could not be doubted. He further said seized material could not be doubted. He further said seized material could not be doubted. He further contended that, the contents of the seized material stood corroborated by contended that, the contents of the seized material stood corroborated by contended that, the contents of the seized material stood corroborated by the assessee’s statement statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act wherein had of the Act wherein had admitted receiving Rs.14 receiving Rs.14.80 crores. He also brought to our .80 crores. He also brought to our notice that, the assessee had paid taxes on Rs.3.30 crores the assessee had paid taxes on Rs.3.30 crores under the PMGKY Scheme PMGKY Scheme and that the remaining sum and that the remaining sum of Rs.11.50 crores, although admitted to of Rs.11.50 crores, although admitted to have been received, was wrongly have been received, was wrongly retracted and not offered in the return not offered in the return of income. Supporting the order of of income. Supporting the order of AO, he thus contended that, the AO AO, he thus contended that, the AO had rightly added the impugned sum had rightly added the impugned sum in the hands of the assessee. in the hands of the assessee.

and at the fag-end, he was questioned regarding the contents of he was questioned regarding the contents of scribblings found in loose papers seized at the premises of M/s SRS ribblings found in loose papers seized at the premises of M/s SRS ribblings found in loose papers seized at the premises of M/s SRS Mining, which was not even actually shown to him and, the assessee not Mining, which was not even actually shown to him and, the assessee not Mining, which was not even actually shown to him and, the assessee not being in the correct frame of mind, accepted whatever the Investigation being in the correct frame of mind, accepted whatever the Investigation being in the correct frame of mind, accepted whatever the Investigation Officer wanted him to admit Officer wanted him to admit, to relieve himself from the ordeal from the ordeal. He showed us that, this fact was evident from the question no. 17 and showed us that, this fact was evident from the question no. 17 and showed us that, this fact was evident from the question no. 17 and assessee’s answer wherein the assessee was confronted with noting of assessee’s answer wherein the assessee was confronted with noting of assessee’s answer wherein the assessee was confronted with noting of Rs.2 crore in relation to FY 2015 Rs.2 crore in relation to FY 2015-16 and that his admission in his answer 16 and that his admission in his answer was Rs.3.3 crores, which had no basis wha was Rs.3.3 crores, which had no basis whatsoever. It was brought to our tsoever. It was brought to our notice that, later on, within twelve days, the assessee had retracted from notice that, later on, within twelve days, the assessee had retracted from notice that, later on, within twelve days, the assessee had retracted from his statement by filing an affidavit. He submitted that, the assessee had his statement by filing an affidavit. He submitted that, the assessee had his statement by filing an affidavit. He submitted that, the assessee had stood by his retraction in the original assessment proceedings, and also stood by his retraction in the original assessment proceedings, and also stood by his retraction in the original assessment proceedings, and also during cross examination by the AO on 26.12.2018. He thus contended ing cross examination by the AO on 26.12.2018. He thus contended ing cross examination by the AO on 26.12.2018. He thus contended that the original statement having been validly retracted was not a that the original statement having been validly retracted was not a that the original statement having been validly retracted was not a reliable piece of evidence to make the impugned addition. reliable piece of evidence to make the impugned addition.

monies had exchanged hands. He further argued that, it was an admitted monies had exchanged hands. He further argued that, it was an admitted monies had exchanged hands. He further argued that, it was an admitted fact that the project was being developed by M/s Kara Property Ventures roject was being developed by M/s Kara Property Ventures roject was being developed by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP and that the apartments were to be sold by them and therefore on LLP and that the apartments were to be sold by them and therefore on LLP and that the apartments were to be sold by them and therefore on- monies, if any, could be inferred only in the hands of LLP and not the monies, if any, could be inferred only in the hands of LLP and not the monies, if any, could be inferred only in the hands of LLP and not the assessee. The Ld. AR contended that, it is well settled in assessee. The Ld. AR contended that, it is well settled in assessee. The Ld. AR contended that, it is well settled in law that right income is to be brought to tax income is to be brought to tax, in the hands of right person in the hands of right person, and that when the Revenue was aware that the appellant had not sold these flats, when the Revenue was aware that the appellant had not sold these flats, when the Revenue was aware that the appellant had not sold these flats, the on-monies could not have been legally added in his hands. He further monies could not have been legally added in his hands. He further monies could not have been legally added in his hands. He further contended that, in spite spite of these facts being known to the Revenue, the of these facts being known to the Revenue, the Revenue didn’t bother to make any enquiries from M/s Kara Property t bother to make any enquiries from M/s Kara Property t bother to make any enquiries from M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP for almost two years and that enquiry was made only at the Ventures LLP for almost two years and that enquiry was made only at the Ventures LLP for almost two years and that enquiry was made only at the fag end of assessment, from which it came to light that the sale of fag end of assessment, from which it came to light that the sale of fag end of assessment, from which it came to light that the sale of apartments never actually fructified but was rescinded. According to artments never actually fructified but was rescinded. According to artments never actually fructified but was rescinded. According to Ld. AR therefore, when the flats were not sold, the question of bringing to tax AR therefore, when the flats were not sold, the question of bringing to tax AR therefore, when the flats were not sold, the question of bringing to tax on-monies didn’t arise. He thus urged that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly t arise. He thus urged that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly t arise. He thus urged that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the impugned addition. deleted the impugned addition.

12.

Heard both the parties. The issue in dispute relates to addition of Heard both the parties. The issue in dispute relates to addition of Heard both the parties. The issue in dispute relates to addition of receipt of on-monies of Rs.11.50 crores in relation to sale of apartment at monies of Rs.11.50 crores in relation to sale of apartment at monies of Rs.11.50 crores in relation to sale of apartment at a project ‘One Crest Chennai’. The undisputed facts of the case are that, a a project ‘One Crest Chennai’. The undisputed facts of the case are that, a a project ‘One Crest Chennai’. The undisputed facts of the case are that, a real estate project, ‘One Crest’ was being developed by M/s Kara Property real estate project, ‘One Crest’ was being developed by M/s Kara Property real estate project, ‘One Crest’ was being developed by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP. It is noted that three ( Ventures LLP. It is noted that three (3) partners of M/s SRS Mining had 3) partners of M/s SRS Mining had booked apartments with the said Developer for which payments were booked apartments with the said Developer for which payments were booked apartments with the said Developer for which payments were inter alia made through banking channel to M/s Kara Property Ventures made through banking channel to M/s Kara Property Ventures made through banking channel to M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP. Accordingly, the undisputed fact is that, the apartment in question LLP. Accordingly, the undisputed fact is that, the apartment in question LLP. Accordingly, the undisputed fact is that, the apartment in question was being sold by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP. It is noted that, d by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP. It is noted that, d by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP. It is noted that, certain scribblings in pencil were found in a dairy maintained by one of certain scribblings in pencil were found in a dairy maintained by one of certain scribblings in pencil were found in a dairy maintained by one of the partners, Mr. Sekar Reddy, regarding payment of Rs.11.50 crores the partners, Mr. Sekar Reddy, regarding payment of Rs.11.50 crores the partners, Mr. Sekar Reddy, regarding payment of Rs.11.50 crores during the relevant year, which according to the Investigati during the relevant year, which according to the Investigati during the relevant year, which according to the Investigating authorities related to payment of on related to payment of on-monies for the apartment in question. It is monies for the apartment in question. It is observed that, upon enquiry made from M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP observed that, upon enquiry made from M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP observed that, upon enquiry made from M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP u/s 133(6) of the Act, the said LLP is noted to have acknowledged that u/s 133(6) of the Act, the said LLP is noted to have acknowledged that u/s 133(6) of the Act, the said LLP is noted to have acknowledged that these three (3) partners had boo these three (3) partners had booked flat with them, but the said booking ked flat with them, but the said booking was cancelled and the monies had been refunded. Accordingly, no sale of was cancelled and the monies had been refunded. Accordingly, no sale of was cancelled and the monies had been refunded. Accordingly, no sale of apartments ever fructified. This fact, we note, has not been disputed by apartments ever fructified. This fact, we note, has not been disputed by apartments ever fructified. This fact, we note, has not been disputed by /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal :: 10 ::

“6.7 … In the statement recorded from the partners of M/s SRS Mining, it … In the statement recorded from the partners of M/s SRS Mining, it … In the statement recorded from the partners of M/s SRS Mining, it is evident that even though the partners have admitted about the payment of is evident that even though the partners have admitted about the payment of is evident that even though the partners have admitted about the payment of advance for purchase of flats at One Crest, advance for purchase of flats at One Crest, the transaction was not completed the transaction was not completed and the advance amount was returned. Neither the Authorised Officer nor the and the advance amount was returned. Neither the Authorised Officer nor the and the advance amount was returned. Neither the Authorised Officer nor the AO has brought on record whether the property in consideration was actually AO has brought on record whether the property in consideration was actually AO has brought on record whether the property in consideration was actually purchased by them. However the AO in the assessment order has treated purchased by them. However the AO in the assessment order has treated purchased by them. However the AO in the assessment order has treated the sum of Rs.11.50 crores as on sum of Rs.11.50 crores as on-money paid to the appellant and brought to tax as money paid to the appellant and brought to tax as the undisclosed income of the appellant u/s 69A of the Act. It is significant to the undisclosed income of the appellant u/s 69A of the Act. It is significant to the undisclosed income of the appellant u/s 69A of the Act. It is significant to bring on record that when the ultimate purchase of the property was not bring on record that when the ultimate purchase of the property was not bring on record that when the ultimate purchase of the property was not materialized, the p materialized, the presumption of the AO that on-money paid upon such money paid upon such ‘phantom transaction’ lacks foundation of making the addition. ‘phantom transaction’ lacks foundation of making the addition.

13.

It is also noted that, the apartments in question were being It is also noted that, the apartments in question were being It is also noted that, the apartments in question were being developed by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP and that the original developed by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP and that the original developed by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP and that the original booking of flats were also between these three (3) partners and M/s Kara lats were also between these three (3) partners and M/s Kara lats were also between these three (3) partners and M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP. It is also a contemporaneous fact that the initial Property Ventures LLP. It is also a contemporaneous fact that the initial Property Ventures LLP. It is also a contemporaneous fact that the initial payment was also received by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP through payment was also received by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP through payment was also received by M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP through banking channel. On these facts, we find merit in the banking channel. On these facts, we find merit in the Ld. AR’s argument Ld. AR’s argument that, legally, any addition on account of purported on that, legally, any addition on account of purported on-monies could have monies could have only been inferred in the hands of M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP and only been inferred in the hands of M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP and only been inferred in the hands of M/s Kara Property Ventures LLP and not the assessee, who was only one of the erstwhile authorized not the assessee, who was only one of the erstwhile authorized not the assessee, who was only one of the erstwhile authorized signatories in the said LLP. It is noted that, the assessee also, in his in the said LLP. It is noted that, the assessee also, in his in the said LLP. It is noted that, the assessee also, in his /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal :: 11 ::

14.

We also gainfully refer to the decision of this Tribunal at Hyderabad We also gainfully refer to the decision of this Tribunal at Hyderabad We also gainfully refer to the decision of this Tribunal at Hyderabad in the case of JCIT Vs Narayana Reddy Vakati (128 taxmann.com JCIT Vs Narayana Reddy Vakati (128 taxmann.com JCIT Vs Narayana Reddy Vakati (128 taxmann.com 377). In the decided case also, search was conducted u . In the decided case also, search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act /s 132 of the Act and several incriminating documents were found which revealed bogus and several incriminating documents were found which revealed bogus and several incriminating documents were found which revealed bogus purchases & unexplained expenditure of a company, M/s VNRIL. The purchases & unexplained expenditure of a company, M/s VNRIL. The purchases & unexplained expenditure of a company, M/s VNRIL. The assessee who was the Managing Director of the said company and had assessee who was the Managing Director of the said company and had assessee who was the Managing Director of the said company and had admitted to the aforesaid undisclosed admitted to the aforesaid undisclosed payments. Relying on his payments. Relying on his statement, the AO added the same in hands of the assessee. On appeal statement, the AO added the same in hands of the assessee. On appeal statement, the AO added the same in hands of the assessee. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition inter alia on the ground that, it was on the ground that, it was brought to tax in hands of ‘wrong person’ i.e. the assessee, and ought to brought to tax in hands of ‘wrong person’ i.e. the assessee, and ought to brought to tax in hands of ‘wrong person’ i.e. the assessee, and ought to have been taxed in the hands of ‘right person’ i.e. d in the hands of ‘right person’ i.e. M/s VNRIL. Upholding VNRIL. Upholding /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal the order of the Ld. CIT(A), this Tribunal is noted to have observed as the order of the Ld. CIT(A), this Tribunal is noted to have observed as the order of the Ld. CIT(A), this Tribunal is noted to have observed as follows:-

“5. The Revenue vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the 5. The Revenue vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the 5. The Revenue vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) ought to have affirmed both the CIT(A) ought to have affirmed both the impugned additions in the assessee's impugned additions in the assessee's hands as per the Assessing Officer's stand. We make it clear that there is not hands as per the Assessing Officer's stand. We make it clear that there is not hands as per the Assessing Officer's stand. We make it clear that there is not even an indication in the Revenue's grounds that the impugned additions pertain even an indication in the Revenue's grounds that the impugned additions pertain even an indication in the Revenue's grounds that the impugned additions pertain to the assessee himself than his company M/s. VNR Infrastruc to the assessee himself than his company M/s. VNR Infrastruc to the assessee himself than his company M/s. VNR Infrastructure Limited. Hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in ITO v. C H Atchaiah [1996] 84 Hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in ITO v. C H Atchaiah [1996] 84 Hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in ITO v. C H Atchaiah [1996] 84 Taxman 630/218 ITR 239 (SC) held long back that the Assessing Officer can and Taxman 630/218 ITR 239 (SC) held long back that the Assessing Officer can and Taxman 630/218 ITR 239 (SC) held long back that the Assessing Officer can and he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By 'right person' it is he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By 'right person' it is he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By 'right person' it is meant the person who is liable to be taxed according to law with respect to a person who is liable to be taxed according to law with respect to a person who is liable to be taxed according to law with respect to a particular income. By the connotation of 'right person', it is meant the person particular income. By the connotation of 'right person', it is meant the person particular income. By the connotation of 'right person', it is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. And that the expression 'w And that the expression 'wrong person' is obviously used as an antithesis of the rong person' is obviously used as an antithesis of the expression 'right person' only. We observe that this assessee is the 'Managing expression 'right person' only. We observe that this assessee is the 'Managing expression 'right person' only. We observe that this assessee is the 'Managing Director' of M/s. VNR Infrastructure Limited. And that it is this latter entity which Director' of M/s. VNR Infrastructure Limited. And that it is this latter entity which Director' of M/s. VNR Infrastructure Limited. And that it is this latter entity which the fact is engaged in all the busin the fact is engaged in all the business activity(ies) and has been assessed ess activity(ies) and has been assessed separately throughout. There is yet another landmark decision Saloman v. separately throughout. There is yet another landmark decision Saloman v. separately throughout. There is yet another landmark decision Saloman v. Saloman and Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22 hold long back in corporate parlance that a Saloman and Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22 hold long back in corporate parlance that a Saloman and Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22 hold long back in corporate parlance that a company is very a body corporate and a distinct entity apart from company is very a body corporate and a distinct entity apart from its Director.

noting’s, which forms basis of the impugned addition, it is necessary , which forms basis of the impugned addition, it is necessary , which forms basis of the impugned addition, it is necessary to keep in mind that the presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act regarding the keep in mind that the presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act regarding the keep in mind that the presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act regarding the contents of seized material is only against the searched person and not to contents of seized material is only against the searched person and not to contents of seized material is only against the searched person and not to any other third party, which is the assessee in the present case. Reason any other third party, which is the assessee in the present case. Reason any other third party, which is the assessee in the present case. Reason being that, if any noting’s noting’s found in the seized material in the seized material at third party premises is presumed to premises is presumed to pertain to the assessee, at its face value, then pertain to the assessee, at its face value, then any person for that matter can mention any person for that matter can mention anyone’s name in any loose anyone’s name in any loose paper/diary at their sweet will and that can be used to paper/diary at their sweet will and that can be used to implicate such other person for no fault of the latter. person for no fault of the latter. Accordingly, an entry made in a an entry made in a diary or notebook by a third person with scant details diary or notebook by a third person with scant details cannot cannot be used to fasten tax liability on the person whose name appears therein, in the fasten tax liability on the person whose name appears therein, in the fasten tax liability on the person whose name appears therein, in the absence of corroborative evidence absence of corroborative evidence. Our view finds support in the decisions nds support in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. v. V.C. Shukla C.B.I. v. V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 and and Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs Union of India (394 ITR 220) Union of India (394 ITR 220). Having regard to this position of law, we . Having regard to this position of law, we now advert to the noting’s noting’s found in the material seized from the premises und in the material seized from the premises of M/s SRS Mining. It is observed that, the assessee had explained before of M/s SRS Mining. It is observed that, the assessee had explained before of M/s SRS Mining. It is observed that, the assessee had explained before the AO that, he was only shown a diary found from the premises of one the AO that, he was only shown a diary found from the premises of one the AO that, he was only shown a diary found from the premises of one Mr. Sekar Reddy wherein there were certain pencil entries noting hi Mr. Sekar Reddy wherein there were certain pencil entries noting hi Mr. Sekar Reddy wherein there were certain pencil entries noting his name against certain cash payments, but there was no acknowledgment name against certain cash payments, but there was no acknowledgment name against certain cash payments, but there was no acknowledgment on that sheet against the amounts by the assessee. According to him on that sheet against the amounts by the assessee. According to him on that sheet against the amounts by the assessee. According to him therefore, such stray notings could not be treated as corroborative therefore, such stray notings could not be treated as corroborative therefore, such stray notings could not be treated as corroborative /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal evidence to infer undisclosed income in the hands evidence to infer undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. The of the assessee. The AO is noted to have acknowledged this objection of the assessee, but had AO is noted to have acknowledged this objection of the assessee, but had AO is noted to have acknowledged this objection of the assessee, but had not specifically controverted the same but rejected it as an after not specifically controverted the same but rejected it as an after not specifically controverted the same but rejected it as an after-thought.

6.11 In the instant case at hand the aforesaid seized material as relied In the instant case at hand the aforesaid seized material as relied In the instant case at hand the aforesaid seized material as relied upon by AO was seized from the premises of a third upon by AO was seized from the premises of a third-party during the course of party during the course of search conducted in the case of the said third h conducted in the case of the said third-party (M/s SRS Mining) The said party (M/s SRS Mining) The said material was neither seized from the premises ofthe Appellant nor was the same material was neither seized from the premises ofthe Appellant nor was the same material was neither seized from the premises ofthe Appellant nor was the same found to be in the handwriting of the Appellant and therefore the same would found to be in the handwriting of the Appellant and therefore the same would found to be in the handwriting of the Appellant and therefore the same would not constitute adequate ev not constitute adequate evidence to draw any adverse inference against the idence to draw any adverse inference against the Appellant, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. The proposition Appellant, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. The proposition Appellant, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. The proposition /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CITvs. Sant Lal laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CITvs. Sant Lal laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CITvs. Sant Lal (118,Taxmann.com 432) is that when a diary is seized in sea (118,Taxmann.com 432) is that when a diary is seized in search of the premises rch of the premises ofa thirdparty allegedly 23 containing entries ofhundi transactions on behalf of ofa thirdparty allegedly 23 containing entries ofhundi transactions on behalf of ofa thirdparty allegedly 23 containing entries ofhundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries sincethe diary was neither found from the premises of assessee said entries sincethe diary was neither found from the premises of assessee said entries sincethe diary was neither found from the premises of assessee nor was it in handwriting of assessee and revenue tallied toproduce any other cogent was it in handwriting of assessee and revenue tallied toproduce any other cogent was it in handwriting of assessee and revenue tallied toproduce any other cogent material to link the assessee to the diary. The ratio of the said decision is material to link the assessee to the diary. The ratio of the said decision is material to link the assessee to the diary. The ratio of the said decision is squarely applicable to the case of the Appellant since the AO had not referred to squarely applicable to the case of the Appellant since the AO had not referred to squarely applicable to the case of the Appellant since the AO had not referred to any cogent material to corroborate the entries made in the material seized from material to corroborate the entries made in the material seized from material to corroborate the entries made in the material seized from a third-party, which were purportedly the transactions made by the said third party, which were purportedly the transactions made by the said third party, which were purportedly the transactions made by the said third- party with the Appellant. party with the Appellant.

We are constrained to observe that the Court has to be on guard while ordering We are constrained to observe that the Court has to be on guard while ordering We are constrained to observe that the Court has to be on guard while ordering investigation against any important constitutional functionar investigation against any important constitutional functionary, officers or any y, officers or any person in the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material. When the person in the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material. When the person in the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material. When the material on the basis of which investigation is sought is itself irrelevant to material on the basis of which investigation is sought is itself irrelevant to material on the basis of which investigation is sought is itself irrelevant to constitute evidence and not admissible in evidence, we have apprehension constitute evidence and not admissible in evidence, we have apprehension constitute evidence and not admissible in evidence, we have apprehension whether it would be safe to even initiate investigation. In case we do so, the would be safe to even initiate investigation. In case we do so, the would be safe to even initiate investigation. In case we do so, the investigation can be ordered as against any person whosoever high in integrity investigation can be ordered as against any person whosoever high in integrity investigation can be ordered as against any person whosoever high in integrity on the basis of irrelevant or inadmissible entry falsely made, by any on the basis of irrelevant or inadmissible entry falsely made, by any on the basis of irrelevant or inadmissible entry falsely made, by any unscrupulous person or business house unscrupulous person or business house that too not kept in regular books of that too not kept in regular books of account but on random papers at any given point of time. There has to be some account but on random papers at any given point of time. There has to be some account but on random papers at any given point of time. There has to be some relevant and admissible evidence and some cogent reason, which is prima facie relevant and admissible evidence and some cogent reason, which is prima facie relevant and admissible evidence and some cogent reason, which is prima facie reliable and that too, supported by some other circumstances p reliable and that too, supported by some other circumstances pointing out that ointing out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries. In case we do not insist for al relations with the random entries. In case we do not insist for al relations with the random entries. In case we do not insist for all these, the process of law can be abused against all and sundry very easily to these, the process of law can be abused against all and sundry very easily to these, the process of law can be abused against all and sundry very easily to achieve ulterior goals and then no democracy can survive in case investigations achieve ulterior goals and then no democracy can survive in case investigations achieve ulterior goals and then no democracy can survive in case investigations are lightly set in motion against important constitutional functionaries on the are lightly set in motion against important constitutional functionaries on the are lightly set in motion against important constitutional functionaries on the basis of fictitious entries, in absence of cogent and admissible material on ous entries, in absence of cogent and admissible material on ous entries, in absence of cogent and admissible material on record, lest liberty of an individual be compromised unnecessarily. record, lest liberty of an individual be compromised unnecessarily. record, lest liberty of an individual be compromised unnecessarily. The aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court stresses the need for exercising decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court stresses the need for exercising decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court stresses the need for exercising caution and for bringing on record relevant, r for bringing on record relevant, reliable and cogent evidence to corroborate the eliable and cogent evidence to corroborate the entries found in loose and notebooks regarding the payments allegedly made to entries found in loose and notebooks regarding the payments allegedly made to entries found in loose and notebooks regarding the payments allegedly made to important constitutional functionaries so that the process of law is not abused by important constitutional functionaries so that the process of law is not abused by important constitutional functionaries so that the process of law is not abused by unscrupulous persons in order to achieve ulterio unscrupulous persons in order to achieve ulterior goals. Therefore, it is goals. Therefore, it is important that the corroborative evidence should be available on record in important that the corroborative evidence should be available on record in important that the corroborative evidence should be available on record in support of the entries made in the seized material found in the premises of support of the entries made in the seized material found in the premises of support of the entries made in the seized material found in the premises of third-party.

6.13 It is brought on record that the said seized material as used 6.13 It is brought on record that the said seized material as used 6.13 It is brought on record that the said seized material as used against the Appellant did not contain complete information to facilitate drawing of such an Appellant did not contain complete information to facilitate drawing of such an Appellant did not contain complete information to facilitate drawing of such an inference. There was absolutely no mention in the seized material regarding the inference. There was absolutely no mention in the seized material regarding the inference. There was absolutely no mention in the seized material regarding the nature of the said transactions of cash payments, the purpose of such payments nature of the said transactions of cash payments, the purpose of such payments nature of the said transactions of cash payments, the purpose of such payments and the precise identity of the recipient. In the absence of such essential and the precise identity of the recipient. In the absence of such essential and the precise identity of the recipient. In the absence of such essential and critical information, it could not be Inferred that the payments were made to the critical information, it could not be Inferred that the payments were made to the critical information, it could not be Inferred that the payments were made to the Appellant and that the said amounts represent the income of the Appellant. It Appellant and that the said amounts represent the income of the Appellant. It Appellant and that the said amounts represent the income of the Appellant. It could also not be in could also not be inferred with a reasonable degree of certainty that the ferred with a reasonable degree of certainty that the payments were made to Appellant. An entry made in a diary or notebook by a payments were made to Appellant. An entry made in a diary or notebook by a payments were made to Appellant. An entry made in a diary or notebook by a third person with scant details third person with scant details cannot be used to fasten tax liability on the cannot be used to fasten tax liability on the Appellant, in the absence of any Appellant, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to attribute the entries idence to attribute the entries to Appellant. Such seized materials liable to be treated as as ‘dumb document’, to Appellant. Such seized materials liable to be treated as as ‘dumb document’, to Appellant. Such seized materials liable to be treated as as ‘dumb document’, which would not have any evidentiary which would not have any evidentiary value in respect of the entries found value in respect of the entries found therein, unless corroborative evidence is available which can provide therein, unless corroborative evidence is available which can provide therein, unless corroborative evidence is available which can provide necessary reliable basis for deciphering the nature and character of the said entries. reliable basis for deciphering the nature and character of the said entries. reliable basis for deciphering the nature and character of the said entries. Another fact was that the Appellant did not acknowledge receipt of any such Another fact was that the Appellant did not acknowledge receipt of any such Another fact was that the Appellant did not acknowledge receipt of any such payment by way of appending his signature / initial against the said payments. payment by way of appending his signature / initial against the said payments. payment by way of appending his signature / initial against the said payments. If a third party unilaterally makes entries in a diary/note book showing rty unilaterally makes entries in a diary/note book showing rty unilaterally makes entries in a diary/note book showing payments to a person to suit his convenience, the payments could not be payments to a person to suit his convenience, the payments could not be payments to a person to suit his convenience, the payments could not be inferred to have been made to the said person unless there is corroborative inferred to have been made to the said person unless there is corroborative inferred to have been made to the said person unless there is corroborative evidence to establish the actual making of payme evidence to establish the actual making of payments to the said person. nts to the said person. There was no reference to such corroborative evidence in the assessment order. was no reference to such corroborative evidence in the assessment order. was no reference to such corroborative evidence in the assessment order.

6.14 When the assessee denied having any transaction with the group, he 6.14 When the assessee denied having any transaction with the group, he 6.14 When the assessee denied having any transaction with the group, he cannot be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per the legal principles laid cannot be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per the legal principles laid cannot be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per the legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 TR down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 TR down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 TR 597) holding that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are 597) holding that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are 597) holding that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost i to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. mpossible burden upon him to establish the negative. Therefore, the AO was not correct in stating that the assessee failed to furnish Therefore, the AO was not correct in stating that the assessee failed to furnish Therefore, the AO was not correct in stating that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to that he did not have any financial transactions with M/s SRS any evidence to that he did not have any financial transactions with M/s SRS any evidence to that he did not have any financial transactions with M/s SRS Mining. The burden was on revenue to establis Mining. The burden was on revenue to establish that the assessee/was in receipt h that the assessee/was in receipt of payments as noted in the seized material. The AO in the present case has not of payments as noted in the seized material. The AO in the present case has not of payments as noted in the seized material. The AO in the present case has not discharged his burden in proving that the Appellant was actually in receipt of the discharged his burden in proving that the Appellant was actually in receipt of the discharged his burden in proving that the Appellant was actually in receipt of the amount of Rs. 11.50Crores. Further, as per settled legal p amount of Rs. 11.50Crores. Further, as per settled legal precedents, no addition recedents, no addition could be made unless there is corroborative evidence to validate the entries could be made unless there is corroborative evidence to validate the entries could be made unless there is corroborative evidence to validate the entries foundin the material seized from a third foundin the material seized from a third-party.”

19.

According to us therefore, the stray According to us therefore, the stray noting’s found in papers from found in papers from third party premises cannot be unilaterally used to make addi third party premises cannot be unilaterally used to make addi third party premises cannot be unilaterally used to make addition in hands of the assessee, and that the onus is on the Revenue to establish hands of the assessee, and that the onus is on the Revenue to establish hands of the assessee, and that the onus is on the Revenue to establish the veracity of the same with corroborative evidence by bringing cogent the veracity of the same with corroborative evidence by bringing cogent the veracity of the same with corroborative evidence by bringing cogent material on record to back the same, which we find the Revenue has material on record to back the same, which we find the Revenue has material on record to back the same, which we find the Revenue has failed to do so, in the present case. failed to do so, in the present case. As noted above, these notings were As noted above, these notings were inferred to relate to on- -money payments for purchase of flats. It is not in money payments for purchase of flats. It is not in dispute that, the sale of flats did not fructify and therefore, inference of dispute that, the sale of flats did not fructify and therefore, inference of dispute that, the sale of flats did not fructify and therefore, inference of receipt of on-monies was not tenable. Further, the statement of the monies was not tenable. Further, the statement of the monies was not tenable. Further, the statement of the assessee recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, which has been heavily relied assessee recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, which has been heavily relied assessee recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, which has been heavily relied upon by the Ld. DR, is found to have been retracted by him. The Ld. AR upon by the Ld. DR, is found to have been retracted by him. The Ld. AR upon by the Ld. DR, is found to have been retracted by him. The Ld. AR has rightly shown that the question put to the assessee and his answer has rightly shown that the question put to the assessee and his answer has rightly shown that the question put to the assessee and his answer does not appear to inspire confidence that does not appear to inspire confidence that the statement was taken the statement was taken without any influence or pressure. No prudent person would admit to without any influence or pressure. No prudent person would admit to without any influence or pressure. No prudent person would admit to income of Rs.3.3 crores, when shown document/noting of Rs. 2 income of Rs.3.3 crores, when shown document/noting of Rs. 2 income of Rs.3.3 crores, when shown document/noting of Rs. 2 crores.

Further, we also note that, the assessee had stood by his retraction and Further, we also note that, the assessee had stood by his retraction and Further, we also note that, the assessee had stood by his retraction and also withstood cross-examination by the AO when summoned u/s 131 of examination by the AO when summoned u/s 131 of examination by the AO when summoned u/s 131 of the Act on 26.12.2018. We therefore also note that, the original the Act on 26.12.2018. We therefore also note that, the original the Act on 26.12.2018. We therefore also note that, the original statement of the assessee, having been validly retracted, is not statement of the assessee, having been validly retracted, is not statement of the assessee, having been validly retracted, is not reliable evidence, in the present matter. It is also noted that, there was no , in the present matter. It is also noted that, there was no , in the present matter. It is also noted that, there was no /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal incriminating material found from the premises of the assessee which ncriminating material found from the premises of the assessee which ncriminating material found from the premises of the assessee which would in any manner corroborate the inference drawn by the AO on the would in any manner corroborate the inference drawn by the AO on the would in any manner corroborate the inference drawn by the AO on the basis of noting’s found in the third party premises. found in the third party premises. Overall, Overall, therefore, we are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that t are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that the stray noting’s noting’s found in the material seized from premises of M/s SRS Mining was in the nature of material seized from premises of M/s SRS Mining was in the nature of material seized from premises of M/s SRS Mining was in the nature of ‘dumb document’ and that the AO was unable to discharge his onus of ‘dumb document’ and that the AO was unable to discharge his onus of ‘dumb document’ and that the AO was unable to discharge his onus of proving that the assessee had indeed received Rs.11.50 crores by way of proving that the assessee had indeed received Rs.11.50 crores by way of proving that the assessee had indeed received Rs.11.50 crores by way of undisclosed monies.

“14. So far as the merits of quantum addition is “14. So far as the merits of quantum addition is concerned, the findings of Ld. concerned, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) have been enumerated by us in detail in preceding paragraphs. The Ld. CIT(A) have been enumerated by us in detail in preceding paragraphs. The Ld. CIT(A) have been enumerated by us in detail in preceding paragraphs. The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of the relevant entries in the seized material, concurred CIT(A), upon perusal of the relevant entries in the seized material, concurred CIT(A), upon perusal of the relevant entries in the seized material, concurred that the name of the assessee did not appear in any of the entries so that the name of the assessee did not appear in any of the entries so that the name of the assessee did not appear in any of the entries so considered /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal by Ld. AO to be pertaining to the assessee. All the entries so considered by AO by Ld. AO to be pertaining to the assessee. All the entries so considered by AO by Ld. AO to be pertaining to the assessee. All the entries so considered by AO merely contain an abbreviation viz. 'OPS Ramesh'. The Ld. AO relied on the merely contain an abbreviation viz. 'OPS Ramesh'. The Ld. AO relied on the merely contain an abbreviation viz. 'OPS Ramesh'. The Ld. AO relied on the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu u/s 132(4) dated 10.12.2016 to conclude that statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu u/s 132(4) dated 10.12.2016 to conclude that statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu u/s 132(4) dated 10.12.2016 to conclude that the said name of 'OPS Ramesh', in the seized material, refers to the assessee. me of 'OPS Ramesh', in the seized material, refers to the assessee. me of 'OPS Ramesh', in the seized material, refers to the assessee. Shri K. Srinivasulu explained in his statement that the name 'OPS Ramesh' in Shri K. Srinivasulu explained in his statement that the name 'OPS Ramesh' in Shri K. Srinivasulu explained in his statement that the name 'OPS Ramesh' in the seized material was used to denote 'PA to OPS' and since the assessee was the seized material was used to denote 'PA to OPS' and since the assessee was the seized material was used to denote 'PA to OPS' and since the assessee was popularly referred to in the medi popularly referred to in the media / press and by the general public as 'OPS', Ld. a / press and by the general public as 'OPS', Ld. AO drew inference that the payments noted in the seized material with the name AO drew inference that the payments noted in the seized material with the name AO drew inference that the payments noted in the seized material with the name 'OPS Ramesh' represent the payments made to the assessee. However, as 'OPS Ramesh' represent the payments made to the assessee. However, as 'OPS Ramesh' represent the payments made to the assessee. However, as rightly noted by Ld. CIT(A), there was no mention anywher rightly noted by Ld. CIT(A), there was no mention anywhere in the statement of e in the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu that the assessee was the actual recipient of the payments Shri K. Srinivasulu that the assessee was the actual recipient of the payments Shri K. Srinivasulu that the assessee was the actual recipient of the payments shown against the said name of 'OPS Ramesh'. Shri K.Srinivasulu did not state shown against the said name of 'OPS Ramesh'. Shri K.Srinivasulu did not state shown against the said name of 'OPS Ramesh'. Shri K.Srinivasulu did not state anywhere in his statement that the acronym 'OPS' was used in the seized anywhere in his statement that the acronym 'OPS' was used in the seized anywhere in his statement that the acronym 'OPS' was used in the seized material to denote the assessee. Further, the seized material did not contain any ial to denote the assessee. Further, the seized material did not contain any ial to denote the assessee. Further, the seized material did not contain any evidence to draw the inference that the payments noted with the name 'OPS evidence to draw the inference that the payments noted with the name 'OPS evidence to draw the inference that the payments noted with the name 'OPS Ramesh' actually represented amounts received by the assessee. Therefore, it Ramesh' actually represented amounts received by the assessee. Therefore, it Ramesh' actually represented amounts received by the assessee. Therefore, it was to be held that the conc was to be held that the conclusion of Ld. AO was on mere presumption that the lusion of Ld. AO was on mere presumption that the abbreviation 'OPS' found in the seized material refers to the assessee and this abbreviation 'OPS' found in the seized material refers to the assessee and this abbreviation 'OPS' found in the seized material refers to the assessee and this presumption was based on the short name popularly used in the press and presumption was based on the short name popularly used in the press and presumption was based on the short name popularly used in the press and media to refer to the assessee. However, drawing such media to refer to the assessee. However, drawing such a presumption without a presumption without having any independent corroborative evidence that the acronym 'OPS' used in having any independent corroborative evidence that the acronym 'OPS' used in having any independent corroborative evidence that the acronym 'OPS' used in the seized material refers only to the assessee and not to any other person the seized material refers only to the assessee and not to any other person the seized material refers only to the assessee and not to any other person whose name may have the same acronym, could not be sustained. In the whose name may have the same acronym, could not be sustained. In the whose name may have the same acronym, could not be sustained. In the absence of any other corroborative evidence supporting the inference drawn by ny other corroborative evidence supporting the inference drawn by ny other corroborative evidence supporting the inference drawn by AO, it could be said that the conclusion of Ld. AO was mere conjecture which AO, it could be said that the conclusion of Ld. AO was mere conjecture which AO, it could be said that the conclusion of Ld. AO was mere conjecture which could not be accepted to fasten huge tax liability on the assessee on account of could not be accepted to fasten huge tax liability on the assessee on account of could not be accepted to fasten huge tax liability on the assessee on account of such inference.

15.

Proceeding further, it could also be seen that the impugned additions have urther, it could also be seen that the impugned additions have urther, it could also be seen that the impugned additions have been made in the hands of the assessee merely on the basis of vague entries been made in the hands of the assessee merely on the basis of vague entries been made in the hands of the assessee merely on the basis of vague entries found in the material seized from a third found in the material seized from a third-party premise. The said material was party premise. The said material was seized from the premises of a third seized from the premises of a third-party during the course of search conducted rty during the course of search conducted in the case of the said third in the case of the said third-party. The said material was neither seized from the party. The said material was neither seized from the premises of the assessee nor was the same found to be in the handwriting of the premises of the assessee nor was the same found to be in the handwriting of the premises of the assessee nor was the same found to be in the handwriting of the assessee. Therefore, such material, unless backed b assessee. Therefore, such material, unless backed by corroborative evidence, y corroborative evidence, would not constitute adequate evidence to draw any adverse inference against would not constitute adequate evidence to draw any adverse inference against would not constitute adequate evidence to draw any adverse inference against the assessee as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sant Lal the assessee as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sant Lal the assessee as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sant Lal [2020] 118 Taxmann.com 432 (Del). The Hon'ble Court, in similar situatio [2020] 118 Taxmann.com 432 (Del). The Hon'ble Court, in similar situatio [2020] 118 Taxmann.com 432 (Del). The Hon'ble Court, in similar situation, held no addition could be made merely on the basis of such entries. The ratio of the no addition could be made merely on the basis of such entries. The ratio of the no addition could be made merely on the basis of such entries. The ratio of the said decision was squarely applicable to the case of the assessee as the Ld. AO said decision was squarely applicable to the case of the assessee as the Ld. AO said decision was squarely applicable to the case of the assessee as the Ld. AO has not referred to any cogent material to corroborate the entries made in the has not referred to any cogent material to corroborate the entries made in the has not referred to any cogent material to corroborate the entries made in the material seized from a third seized from a third-party which are purportedly the transactions made party which are purportedly the transactions made by the said third-party with the assessee. The other decisions including the party with the assessee. The other decisions including the party with the assessee. The other decisions including the decision of Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan decision of Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan decision of Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan [TS-5104-ITAT-2007 (Jabalpur) 2007 (Jabalpur)-O] further supports this proposition. Similarly, O] further supports this proposition. Similarly, Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Riveria Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITA Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Riveria Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITA Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Riveria Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITA No.250/Mum/2013) held that AO was required to bring further evidence on No.250/Mum/2013) held that AO was required to bring further evidence on No.250/Mum/2013) held that AO was required to bring further evidence on record to show that the money was actually exchanged between th record to show that the money was actually exchanged between th record to show that the money was actually exchanged between the parties in case where there was no other evidence on record to prove that on case where there was no other evidence on record to prove that on case where there was no other evidence on record to prove that on-money was paid except the loose sheets found in the premise of third paid except the loose sheets found in the premise of third-party and admission party and admission made by the third- -party. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common party. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal :: 21 ::

Cause vs. UOI (supra) stressed the need for exercising caution and for bringing (supra) stressed the need for exercising caution and for bringing (supra) stressed the need for exercising caution and for bringing on record relevant, reliable and cogent evidence to corroborate the entries found on record relevant, reliable and cogent evidence to corroborate the entries found on record relevant, reliable and cogent evidence to corroborate the entries found in loose sheets and note books regarding the payments allegedly made to in loose sheets and note books regarding the payments allegedly made to in loose sheets and note books regarding the payments allegedly made to important constitutional functionar important constitutional functionaries so that the process of law is not abused by ies so that the process of law is not abused by unscrupulous persons in order to achieve ulterior goals. Therefore, it was unscrupulous persons in order to achieve ulterior goals. Therefore, it was unscrupulous persons in order to achieve ulterior goals. Therefore, it was important that the corroborative evidence was available on record in support of important that the corroborative evidence was available on record in support of important that the corroborative evidence was available on record in support of the entries in the seized material found in the premi the entries in the seized material found in the premises of third ses of third-party. Considering all these facts as well as the ratio of these judicial precedents, we Considering all these facts as well as the ratio of these judicial precedents, we Considering all these facts as well as the ratio of these judicial precedents, we concur with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) that the seized material did not contain concur with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) that the seized material did not contain concur with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) that the seized material did not contain complete information to facilitate drawing of such an adverse inference ag complete information to facilitate drawing of such an adverse inference ag complete information to facilitate drawing of such an adverse inference against the assessee. The information was a vague information. In such a situation, it the assessee. The information was a vague information. In such a situation, it the assessee. The information was a vague information. In such a situation, it could not be inferred with a reasonable degree of certainty that the payments could not be inferred with a reasonable degree of certainty that the payments could not be inferred with a reasonable degree of certainty that the payments were made to a person whose name (or code name) appears therein and that were made to a person whose name (or code name) appears therein and that were made to a person whose name (or code name) appears therein and that the said amounts rep the said amounts represent the income of the said person. As rightly held by Ld. resent the income of the said person. As rightly held by Ld. CIT(A), an entry made in a diary or notebook by a third person with scant CIT(A), an entry made in a diary or notebook by a third person with scant CIT(A), an entry made in a diary or notebook by a third person with scant details could not be used to fasten tax liability on the person whose name details could not be used to fasten tax liability on the person whose name details could not be used to fasten tax liability on the person whose name appears therein, in the absence of corroborati appears therein, in the absence of corroborative evidence. If a third ve evidence. If a third-party unilaterally makes entries in a diary / note book showing payments to a person unilaterally makes entries in a diary / note book showing payments to a person unilaterally makes entries in a diary / note book showing payments to a person to suit his convenience, the payments could not be inferred to have been made to suit his convenience, the payments could not be inferred to have been made to suit his convenience, the payments could not be inferred to have been made to the said person unless there is corroborative evidence to establis to the said person unless there is corroborative evidence to establis to the said person unless there is corroborative evidence to establish the actual making of payments to the said person. making of payments to the said person.

16. So far as the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu is concerned, as rightly held 16. So far as the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu is concerned, as rightly held 16. So far as the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu is concerned, as rightly held by Ld. CIT(A), the same would not serve as corroborative evidence in respect of by Ld. CIT(A), the same would not serve as corroborative evidence in respect of by Ld. CIT(A), the same would not serve as corroborative evidence in respect of entries in the seized material. That person entries in the seized material. That person gave a general statement that the gave a general statement that the entries represent incidental expenses paid to various persons. When there were entries represent incidental expenses paid to various persons. When there were entries represent incidental expenses paid to various persons. When there were numerous pages and entries in the seized material, such a general statement numerous pages and entries in the seized material, such a general statement numerous pages and entries in the seized material, such a general statement would not inspire confidence for drawing any conclusion in respect would not inspire confidence for drawing any conclusion in respect would not inspire confidence for drawing any conclusion in respect of specific entries appearing therein allegedly with the abbreviated name of the assessee to entries appearing therein allegedly with the abbreviated name of the assessee to entries appearing therein allegedly with the abbreviated name of the assessee to conclude that the entries represent payment made to the assessee only. There conclude that the entries represent payment made to the assessee only. There conclude that the entries represent payment made to the assessee only. There was nothing in the statement even to remotely suggest that the entries was nothing in the statement even to remotely suggest that the entries was nothing in the statement even to remotely suggest that the entries appearing with the abbreviated name actually represent payment made to the the abbreviated name actually represent payment made to the the abbreviated name actually represent payment made to the assessee. The statement merely stated that the entries were maintained on the assessee. The statement merely stated that the entries were maintained on the assessee. The statement merely stated that the entries were maintained on the instructions of the partners of M/s SRS mining. It was very clear that Shri K. instructions of the partners of M/s SRS mining. It was very clear that Shri K. instructions of the partners of M/s SRS mining. It was very clear that Shri K. Srinivasulu had no first Srinivasulu had no first-hand knowledge of the payments noted in the seized e of the payments noted in the seized material and had merely noted whatever was told to him by the partners. In material and had merely noted whatever was told to him by the partners. In material and had merely noted whatever was told to him by the partners. In such a situation, the statement would serve a very limited purpose of such a situation, the statement would serve a very limited purpose of such a situation, the statement would serve a very limited purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person who made the entries and nothing ascertaining the identity of the person who made the entries and nothing ascertaining the identity of the person who made the entries and nothing more. Since the entries were made on the instructions of the partners, it is the Since the entries were made on the instructions of the partners, it is the Since the entries were made on the instructions of the partners, it is the partners who were required to explain the exact identity of the recipients, the partners who were required to explain the exact identity of the recipients, the partners who were required to explain the exact identity of the recipients, the nature of payments, the purpose of payments and the identity of the person nature of payments, the purpose of payments and the identity of the person nature of payments, the purpose of payments and the identity of the person who made the payment who made the payments etc. However, there is no material on record which s etc. However, there is no material on record which would show that any of the partners was examined with regard to relevant would show that any of the partners was examined with regard to relevant would show that any of the partners was examined with regard to relevant entries in the seized material. There was no reference to any such statement of entries in the seized material. There was no reference to any such statement of entries in the seized material. There was no reference to any such statement of the partners in the assessment order. Therefore, t the partners in the assessment order. Therefore, the statement of Shri K. he statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu could barely be considered as corroborative evidence against the Srinivasulu could barely be considered as corroborative evidence against the Srinivasulu could barely be considered as corroborative evidence against the assessee with regard to the entries in the seized material. This was further assessee with regard to the entries in the seized material. This was further assessee with regard to the entries in the seized material. This was further fortified by the fact that the said statement was retracted vide letters dated fortified by the fact that the said statement was retracted vide letters dated fortified by the fact that the said statement was retracted vide letters dated 21- 03-2017 and 23-03 03-2017 addressed to DDIT (Inv.) which was submitted by Shri 2017 addressed to DDIT (Inv.) which was submitted by Shri K. Srinivasulu through the Jail Superintendent when he was lodged in the Jail. In K. Srinivasulu through the Jail Superintendent when he was lodged in the Jail. In K. Srinivasulu through the Jail Superintendent when he was lodged in the Jail. In the retraction letters, it was claimed that the earlier statement was given under the retraction letters, it was claimed that the earlier statement was given under the retraction letters, it was claimed that the earlier statement was given under /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal :: 22 ::

coercion and duress and in a state of mental shock, depression and physical duress and in a state of mental shock, depression and physical duress and in a state of mental shock, depression and physical exhaustion at the relevant point of time due to continuance of search action exhaustion at the relevant point of time due to continuance of search action exhaustion at the relevant point of time due to continuance of search action continuously for more than 3 days without a break and he not being allowed to continuously for more than 3 days without a break and he not being allowed to continuously for more than 3 days without a break and he not being allowed to sleep or to take rest. He further sta sleep or to take rest. He further stated that he was not allowed to read the ted that he was not allowed to read the typed statement and his signature was obtained by force. He stated that he typed statement and his signature was obtained by force. He stated that he typed statement and his signature was obtained by force. He stated that he never paid any money to various persons as recorded in the typed assessment. never paid any money to various persons as recorded in the typed assessment. never paid any money to various persons as recorded in the typed assessment. He also stated that he signed the statement to end the prolonged He also stated that he signed the statement to end the prolonged He also stated that he signed the statement to end the prolonged ordeal of intimidation, harassment and mental torture. Shri K. Srinivasulu reiterated his intimidation, harassment and mental torture. Shri K. Srinivasulu reiterated his intimidation, harassment and mental torture. Shri K. Srinivasulu reiterated his retraction in the course of statement u/s 131 as recorded by Ld. AO on 30 retraction in the course of statement u/s 131 as recorded by Ld. AO on 30 retraction in the course of statement u/s 131 as recorded by Ld. AO on 30-03- 2021 during the course of assessment proceedings. This being the case, it could 2021 during the course of assessment proceedings. This being the case, it could 2021 during the course of assessment proceedings. This being the case, it could be said that the retraction was rejected by Ld. AO without any valid reasons. that the retraction was rejected by Ld. AO without any valid reasons. that the retraction was rejected by Ld. AO without any valid reasons.

17. It could further be noted that similar additions were made by revenue in the 17. It could further be noted that similar additions were made by revenue in the 17. It could further be noted that similar additions were made by revenue in the case of another similarly placed assessee by the name Shri P. Ramamohan Rao. case of another similarly placed assessee by the name Shri P. Ramamohan Rao. case of another similarly placed assessee by the name Shri P. Ramamohan Rao. That assessee sought cross That assessee sought cross-examination of Shri K. Srinivasulu during the course xamination of Shri K. Srinivasulu during the course of assessment proceedings. However, Shri K. Srinivasulu became non of assessment proceedings. However, Shri K. Srinivasulu became non of assessment proceedings. However, Shri K. Srinivasulu became non- cooperative and hostile during the course of preliminary examination of the said cooperative and hostile during the course of preliminary examination of the said cooperative and hostile during the course of preliminary examination of the said person before Ld. AO on 19.12.2018. Since the witness tu person before Ld. AO on 19.12.2018. Since the witness turned hostile, it was rned hostile, it was concluded that cross concluded that cross-examination would not serve any useful purpose. That examination would not serve any useful purpose. That assessee preferred Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court of Madras praying for assessee preferred Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court of Madras praying for assessee preferred Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court of Madras praying for issue of directions to the AO to permit the assessee to cross issue of directions to the AO to permit the assessee to cross issue of directions to the AO to permit the assessee to cross-examine the witness being relied upon by Ld. AO. The writ petition was dismissed vide order s being relied upon by Ld. AO. The writ petition was dismissed vide order s being relied upon by Ld. AO. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2018. The Hon'ble Court held that there was no infirmity in the dated 27.12.2018. The Hon'ble Court held that there was no infirmity in the dated 27.12.2018. The Hon'ble Court held that there was no infirmity in the order of AO in refusing the request for cross order of AO in refusing the request for cross-examination since the witness examination since the witness turned hostile. The Hon'ble Co turned hostile. The Hon'ble Court further observed that if AO was to rely on the urt further observed that if AO was to rely on the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu which is in favor of the revenue, the AO has to statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu which is in favor of the revenue, the AO has to statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu which is in favor of the revenue, the AO has to let in other reliable evidence to corroborate the same. Similarly, the Hon'ble let in other reliable evidence to corroborate the same. Similarly, the Hon'ble let in other reliable evidence to corroborate the same. Similarly, the Hon'ble Court in the case of M/s SRS mining Vs UOI (1 Court in the case of M/s SRS mining Vs UOI (141 Taxmann.com 272), at para 9, 41 Taxmann.com 272), at para 9, observed that the statement of Shri K Srinivasulu could not be relied upon as he observed that the statement of Shri K Srinivasulu could not be relied upon as he observed that the statement of Shri K Srinivasulu could not be relied upon as he turned hostile by giving specific retraction statement and there was no need to turned hostile by giving specific retraction statement and there was no need to turned hostile by giving specific retraction statement and there was no need to accord permission to cross accord permission to cross-examine him in view of the said reason. Considering on. Considering these observations, it was to be held that the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu these observations, it was to be held that the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu these observations, it was to be held that the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu could not be used against the assessee unless some other evidence to could not be used against the assessee unless some other evidence to could not be used against the assessee unless some other evidence to corroborate the same was made available on record. corroborate the same was made available on record. In the present case, Ld. AO In the present case, Ld. AO did not rely on any other corroborative evidences except for relying on the on any other corroborative evidences except for relying on the on any other corroborative evidences except for relying on the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu since in the sworn statements of three other statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu since in the sworn statements of three other statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu since in the sworn statements of three other partners recorded on 08 partners recorded on 08-12-2016, no questions were posed to them at all 2016, no questions were posed to them at all regarding the seized material allegedly co regarding the seized material allegedly containing the details of incidental ntaining the details of incidental charges paid to various persons. It was thus evident that no other corroborative charges paid to various persons. It was thus evident that no other corroborative charges paid to various persons. It was thus evident that no other corroborative evidence was available in record in respect of notings in the seized material. evidence was available in record in respect of notings in the seized material. evidence was available in record in respect of notings in the seized material. Therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained merel Therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained merely relying on this y relying on this statement. The conclusions of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, find our concurrence. statement. The conclusions of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, find our concurrence. statement. The conclusions of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, find our concurrence.

precedents, no addition could be made unle precedents, no addition could be made unless there is corroborative evidence to ss there is corroborative evidence to validate the entries found in the material seized from a third party. The Hon'ble validate the entries found in the material seized from a third party. The Hon'ble validate the entries found in the material seized from a third party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (AIR SC 410) held that every Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (AIR SC 410) held that every Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (AIR SC 410) held that every transaction as recorded in the regular books needs to be i transaction as recorded in the regular books needs to be i transaction as recorded in the regular books needs to be independently corroborated and proved when some liability is to be fastened in respect of such corroborated and proved when some liability is to be fastened in respect of such corroborated and proved when some liability is to be fastened in respect of such transactions. The legal principle as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is that transactions. The legal principle as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is that transactions. The legal principle as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is that independent corroborative evidence is required in respect of entries in regular independent corroborative evidence is required in respect of entries in regular independent corroborative evidence is required in respect of entries in regular books of accounts and the same would apply in the present case. The decision of oks of accounts and the same would apply in the present case. The decision of oks of accounts and the same would apply in the present case. The decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Sri B.S.Yediyurappa (ITA Bangalore Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Sri B.S.Yediyurappa (ITA Bangalore Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Sri B.S.Yediyurappa (ITA No.14/Bang/2019 dated 07.04.2022) is on similar fact. The bench held that the No.14/Bang/2019 dated 07.04.2022) is on similar fact. The bench held that the No.14/Bang/2019 dated 07.04.2022) is on similar fact. The bench held that the addition made in the hands of th addition made in the hands of the said person who was the Chief Minister of the e said person who was the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka during the relevant period, based on the entries of cash State of Karnataka during the relevant period, based on the entries of cash State of Karnataka during the relevant period, based on the entries of cash payments found recorded with the initials "BSY'' in the material seized during payments found recorded with the initials "BSY'' in the material seized during payments found recorded with the initials "BSY'' in the material seized during the course of search conducted in the case of a third the course of search conducted in the case of a third party, would not party, would not sustainable in the absence of any evidence to corroborate the notings in the sustainable in the absence of any evidence to corroborate the notings in the sustainable in the absence of any evidence to corroborate the notings in the seized material. The said decision, in our opinion, is squarely applicable to the seized material. The said decision, in our opinion, is squarely applicable to the seized material. The said decision, in our opinion, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and favors the case of the assessee. facts of the present case and favors the case of the assessee.

19. Considering all these facts, the apt conclusion would be that the seized all these facts, the apt conclusion would be that the seized all these facts, the apt conclusion would be that the seized material was in the nature of dumb document which did not contain complete material was in the nature of dumb document which did not contain complete material was in the nature of dumb document which did not contain complete and unambiguous information to arrive at such a conclusion that the assessee and unambiguous information to arrive at such a conclusion that the assessee and unambiguous information to arrive at such a conclusion that the assessee was in receipt of the payments found noted was in receipt of the payments found noted therein against the name 'OPS therein against the name 'OPS Ramesh'. There was no corroborative evidence to support and supplement the Ramesh'. There was no corroborative evidence to support and supplement the Ramesh'. There was no corroborative evidence to support and supplement the details in the seized material to conclusively establish that the name 'OPS details in the seized material to conclusively establish that the name 'OPS details in the seized material to conclusively establish that the name 'OPS Ramesh' found in the seized material refers to the assessee only. There was Ramesh' found in the seized material refers to the assessee only. There was Ramesh' found in the seized material refers to the assessee only. There was no corroborative evidence to prove that the payments noted in the seized material corroborative evidence to prove that the payments noted in the seized material corroborative evidence to prove that the payments noted in the seized material have actually materialized and transfer of money has actually taken place have actually materialized and transfer of money has actually taken place have actually materialized and transfer of money has actually taken place between the concerned parties. In view of all these reasons, the addition of between the concerned parties. In view of all these reasons, the addition of between the concerned parties. In view of all these reasons, the addition of alleged receipts by th alleged receipts by the assessee from M/s SRS Mining has rightly been deleted e assessee from M/s SRS Mining has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A). We endorse the view of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard.” by Ld. CIT(A). We endorse the view of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard.”

22.

In view of our above discussions, specific facts of this case, we are In view of our above discussions, specific facts of this case, we are In view of our above discussions, specific facts of this case, we are of the considered view that, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly hel of the considered view that, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly hel of the considered view that, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly held that the seized material was in the nature of dumb document which did not seized material was in the nature of dumb document which did not seized material was in the nature of dumb document which did not contain complete and unambiguous information to arrive at such a contain complete and unambiguous information to arrive at such a contain complete and unambiguous information to arrive at such a conclusion that the assessee was in receipt of conclusion that the assessee was in receipt of on-monies and thatt monies and thatthere was no corroborative evidence to support and was no corroborative evidence to support and supplement the supplement the stray notings, particularly when the purported transaction concerning these notings, particularly when the purported transaction concerning these notings, particularly when the purported transaction concerning these notings never materialized. Also, as held above, the assessee had also notings never materialized. Also, as held above, the assessee had also notings never materialized. Also, as held above, the assessee had also validly retracted his original statement and therefore the AO’s reliance validly retracted his original statement and therefore the AO’s reliance validly retracted his original statement and therefore the AO’s reliance /Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)& CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017 CO No.69/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18) Gopu Rajagopal thereupon to justify the impugned addition is found to be unjustified the impugned addition is found to be unjustified the impugned addition is found to be unjustified. In view of all these reasons, view of all these reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the order of see no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.