DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA vs. MADAN MOHAN GUPTA, KOTA

4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, whether the ld.CIT (A) has erred in sustaining only Rs. 2,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- made u/s 69A on account of unexplained money by treating total amount as Rs. 3,37,470/- instead of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- by accepting unsubstantiated submission of the assessee that the transaction of payment written in the name of Deepchandand Ganpat on 30.03.2015 in seized dairy, is not related to the seized hundi as the date and name are different and ignoring the fact that the assessee during statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, in reply to question No. 22 admitted that the hundi pertain to cash loan to ‘Deepchand’; therefore, submission that person of hundi and person of dairy are different is not acceptable as ‘Deepchand’ is mentioned on both documents who admitted in the statement; further, the assessee has failed to explain as to how these are different persons and to submit any confirmation from relevant person.

5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, whether the ld.CIT (A) has erred in sustaining only Rs. 2,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- made u/s 69A on account of unexplained money by treating total amount as Rs. 3,37,470/- instead of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- by accepting unsubstantiated submission of the assessee that transaction on hundi is not related to the transaction on right side of the cash book ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to prove that the hundi transaction giving cash loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- is duly accounted for; and the CIT (A) did not examine the assessee’s unusual business practices regarding cash loans.

6. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, whether the ld.CIT (A) has erred in appreciating the reply of the assessee without appreciating the facts and legal position that reply of the assessee was not supported by the confirmations of the party and further, the CIT (A) has remarked that the AO has not controverted the reply of the assessee but the CIT (A) has not mentioned whether any remand report was called from the AO for verification and presenting his stand; and in absence of the same, decision of the CIT (A) is not acceptable.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and derives income from business, salary income, capital gain and other sources i.e. interest income. The assessee had filed his return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.04.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 26,96,370/- for the assessment year under consideration. A search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out on 01.08.2019 at the various premises of “Friend SPS Group, Kota” to which the assessee belongs. Cash, jewellery and other documents were found and seized from some person’s residence and business premises. The case of the appellant was also covered under search proceeding. Consequent to search action, notice under section 153A of the IT Act, 1961 was issued by the AO on 18.01.2021 which was duly served to the assessee. In compliance to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income under section 153A on 27.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 26,96,370/- which is the same as declared in Income-tax return filed under section 139 of the IT Act, 1961 on 30.04.2016. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO on 18.06.2021 through ITBA portal. Further, notice under sub section (1) of section 142 of the Act was issued by the AO on 08.09.2021 along with questionnaire/Annexure-A requiring certain details/information, which was duly served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee furnished the desired details/information/documents which were examined with respect to claims made in the return of income. The search record regarding the assessee was also observed and examined thoroughly. During the course of search and seizure proceedings, various incriminating documents were found and seized including Annexure AS-20 a red color Neel Gagan Note book containing some notings at pages 1 to 5. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the descriptions written in all the pages of Annexure AS-20. In response, the assessee explained that these notings in this document are rough notings related to household expenses. The assessee has already given his explanation in reply to Question No. 29 in his statement recorded on 02.08.2019 and stated that there is no financial impact. The AO considered the reply of the assessee as wrong and baseless. The AO was of the view that this diary is a cash book for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. In reply to show cause notice dated 16.09.2021 issued by the AO, the assessee submitted that Annexure AS-20 is a Red Color Neel Gagan Notebook containing total pages 1 to 5. This is a rough note book and is not a cash book of the assessee as alleged by the AO. The assessee further submitted that “had it been a cash book, now come only single page i.e. page no. 5 was found written and that too with pencil. A careful perusal of the said diary would reveal that it is not a cash book as alleged by you but merely a rough note book only. It is a matter of record that out of total 5 pages, only one page is written and the remaining pages contains the name of gods and prayers.” The assessee further submitted that page 5 of exhibit AS-20 would reveal that there is no mention of LAKHS against the figures written with pencil. As against this factual position emerging out of the seized paper, the AO has allegedly interpolated the figures in the note book in lakhs on surmises which is not legally correct. The AO considered the explanation of the assessee but he could not find it acceptable. Accordingly, the AO while completing the assessment, assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,64,43,370/- by making addition of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- under section 69A of the IT Act, 1961 as income of the assessee on account of unexplained money, vide his order under section 153A of the IT Act, 1961 dated 28.09.2021. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order, filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) considering the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- in place of addition of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- made by the AO. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above.

“ The appeal has been filed by the Department challenging the impugned order whereby the ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the assessee’s appeal and restricted the addition to Rs. 2,00,000/- down from Rs. 3,37,47,000/- made u/s 69A of the IT Act6 in assessment.

A. Addition in assessment has been made purely on conjectures without noticing the internal contradictions and inconsistencies. The additions made in the assessment order are based on conjecture and assumptions of the ld. AO wherein he had relied on two seized annexures being –  Page 89 of annexure AS-1 ( as hundi dated 30.08.2019)(Annexure 1) and  Page 5 of annexure AS-20 (rough notings of household expenses of all family members)(Annexure 2).

The rough notings mentioned at page 5 of AS-20 do not anywhere mention if these figures are in hundreds, thousands, lacs or crores. The Ld. AO has incorrectly correlated the transactions mentioned in the two annexures and assumed that the notings are in lacs. To come to this conclusion the Ld. AO has relied upon the page 89 of annexure AS-1 (hundi) given to one Sh. Deepchand Satyapal wherein he was givenRs. 5,00,000/- by Shakuntala Gupta the wife of the respondent assessee out of her own savings. This fact had been duly explained by the assessee in his statement recorded during search at Q. 22 (Annexure 3) and also in his written submission filed before both AO and CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) has also mentioned this fact in his order at page 19.

The correlation of the two annexures done by the AO to come to the conclusions that (i) the quantum of amounts mentioned in AS-20 is in lacs and (ii) that all the entries therein pertain to the assessee is incorrect because – i) The main basis of correlation is an entry at bottom right hand side of the rough notings by the name of Deepchand Ganpatlal. The AO has related this entry with the hundi seized by ignoring the glaring inconsistency that the name in hundi is Deepchand Satyapal and not Deepchand Ganpatlal.

Secondly regarding the same entry, the dates mentioned on the hundi and rough notings do not match with the hundi dated 30.08.2015 and the rough noting is dated 30.05.2015.

Thirdly the AO at Page 12 of his order has relied on some hundi dated 29.03.2015 which has not been provided to us till date. Such reliance on documents not provided to the assessee is a violation of principles of natural justice. ii) Further as the assessee explained in his statement recorded during search at Page 15 (Annexure-3) and also in his submissions that the rough notings are household expenses of his family members and not just him. This fact is also explainable by another entry at right hand side of the rough notings wherein there is mention of some expense being paid related to one Canvas Farms. The assessee had duly explained the property at Canvas Farms was not owned by him but by other family member namely SK Gupta and Shilpi Gupta. The Assessee even provided the sale deed to the same to substantiate this fact.

The Ld. CIT (A) after taking note of these contradictions and inconsistencies has rightly come to the conclusion that deciphering of the quantum by the AO was not correct. Further the CIT (A) has correctly observed that AO has failed to disprove the claim made by the assessee of these rough notings being household expenses (in thousands) of all the family members. The CIT (A) has correctly held that such an explanation could not have been rejected by the AO, without bringing on record any corroborative material.

B. The assessee has duly rebutted the presumption u/s 292C(1)(i) of the IT Act.It is submitted that the assessee in his answer to Q. 15 of his statement recorded during search had duly informed the Department that all the rough notings at page 5 of annexure AS-20 do not belong solely to him but are in- fact household expenses related to all of his family members. Therefore, the assessee had duly rebutted the presumption u/s 292C(1)(i) of the IT Act – “that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person”. Since the assessee has duly rebutted this presumption by way of his statements and other documentary evidence therefore the ld. AO erred in making the additions in the caseof the assessee u/s 153A of IT Act, 1961. C. The addition in relation to entry of CB amounting to 334.76 (neither in thousands nor lacs) could not be made for AY 2015-16 –

Without prejudice to the above grounds it is submitted that the AO has erred in presuming that in the rough notings at page 5 of annexure AS-20 is Cash Book foray 2015-19, by ignoring another glaring noting at the very top of the page which mentions that this CB starts from 01.04.2015i.e. AY 2016-17 and not AY 2015-16.

Although there is mentioning of dates for all other transactions, but for CB it is clearly stated that Rs. 334.6 (in thousands) is cash balance for period of FY 2015-16 (being AY 2016-17), therefore, the same is outside the AY under consideration.

It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT (A) may kindly be sustained.”

Ground Nos. 1 to 6 relates to deletion of addition.

(ii) Further as the assessee explained in his statement recorded during search at Page 15 (Annexure-3) and also in his submission that the rough notings are household expenses of his family members and not just him. This fact is also explainable by another entry at right hand side of the rough notings wherein there is mention of some expense being paid related to one Canvas Farms. The assessee had duly explained the property at Canvas Farms was not owned by him but by other family member namely S.K. Gupta and Shilpi Gupta. The assessee even provided the Sale Deed to the same to substantiate this fact. Thus the ld. A/R submitted that since the assessee has duly rebutted this presumption by way of his statements and other documentary evidence, therefore, the AO has erred in making the addition in the case of the assessee under section 153A of the IT Act, 1961.

On going through the order of the ld. CIT (A), we find that the ld. CIT (A) while partly allowing the relief to the assessee, has discussed the matter in detail and the observations of the ld. CIT (A) at pages 20 to 22 of his order are being reproduced hereunder :-

“ It is observed that the AO noted that nothing has been mentioned as regards to the quantum of amount whether it is in thousand lacs or in crores, but the quantum of amount is presumed to be in lacs as same is found supported by the Hundi of Rs. 5 lacs found in the name of Deepchand Ganpatlal. Hence, the assumption of the amount in lakhs is based on correlation with the Hundi of Rs. 5 lakhs. The appellant stated that during the course of search on 02.08.2019, the assessee was asked about the same and while replying to question no. 29, the assessee has answered regarding Exhibit-20 that page no. 5 of the diary is details of household expenses. In post-search investigation also, the assessee was asked to explain the descriptions so written. In response, the assessee reiterated that this document is rough notings of household expenses. The same reply was also given earlier during the course of search. It is observed that there is consistency in the reply of the assessee with regard to entries made in the seized documents. The explanation of the appellant cannot be considered as afterthought because of consistent stand taken by the assessee.

The appellant stated that hundi of Shri Deepchand Satyapal dated 30.08.2019 has been incorrectly correlated as the name and date on both the documents are different. Name on the hundi is different as Deepchand Satyapal and not DeepchandGanpatlal and also, the date of the same is 30.08.2019 and not 30.05.2015 as written on PAGE No. 5 of the seized Annexure A-20 and therefore, there is no correlation between two. The claim made by the appellant is found to be acceptable on the basis of seized documents. It is found to be correct that name and date on the seized Hundi is different from the notings made on Page No. 5 of the seized Annexure A-20. The AO has heavily relied upon this document for deciphering the figures as Lakhs. The conclusion made by the AO is not found to be sustainable in view of the fact that the documents relied upon are not supporting the view of the AO. It is stated by the assessee that the assessee is not owner of Canvas Farm written on right hand side and the same is owned by other family members. The AO has not controverted this claim made by the assessee. It is explained that Ramu is name of the worker from whom Rs. 2,000/- were received back which were given earlier for his emergent need with interest of Rs. 710/-. Like-wise, as may kindly be observed from the invoices in respect of payments made to Manohar Ply and Rishabh Hardware for minor bed repairing work that the same are for Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- only. Such petty household transactions were met out of the withdrawals made from business and past savings of the family. Therefore, deciphering the figures in lakh of rupees is not justified. It is observed that the claim made by the assessee is not disproved by the AO. There is no corroborative evidence brought on record to establish that the figures are in lakhs. The explanation of the assessee annot be rejected without bringing corroborative material on record. Therefore, the explanation of the assessee is required to be considered. It is observed that the assessee never decoded these figures as written in lakh of rupees. The ld. AO did not decipher the figure correctly. The ld. AO has erroneously correlated the same with a document which has no connection with the scribbling on this paper. There is no independent and corroborative material is available and therefore, addition cannot be made on the basis of uncorroborated writing. Further, the seized paper does not contain entries pertaining to the assessee only, it has entry pertaining to other family members also, the Canvas Farm is not owned by him but other family members and as such, it cannot be said that the scribbling on the paper belong to assessee alone. The facts of the case are considered. The whole Addition is based on deciphering of figures. Right from the beginning, the assessee explained that the figures of rough notings cannot be deciphered on the basis of the promissory note as considered and relied upon by the ld. AO for the reasons that it was not with respect to the scribbling on the said paper wherein the name and date both are different. The ld. AO could not bring any tangible material evidence therefore the deciphering is not found to be sustainable. As per explanation of the appellant, the figures of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- is not correct as the deciphering by the AO is not correct. However, the appellant has accepted that the figure should be deciphered as Rs. 3,37,470/-. The appellant explained that Ramu is name of the worker from whom Rs. 2,000/- were received back which were given earlier for his emergent need with interest of Rs. 710/-. Like- wise, as may kindly be observed from the invoices in respect of payments made to Manohar Ply and Rishabh Hardware for minor bed repairing work that the same are for Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- only. The appellant is required to explain the source of this amount. The appellant has provided general explanation with regard to this amount as this expenditure is made out of household withdrawals. The appellant also claimed that the expenditure was pertaining to other family members also. Considering these facts, the amount of Rs. 1,37,470/- is assumed as reasonably explained by the appellant and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is treated as unexplained in place of addition of Rs.3,37,47,000/- made by the AO. In view of above discussion, the addition made by the AO is sustained to be extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the remaining amount of addition is not found to be sustainable. This ground of appeal is treated as partly allowed.”

Taking into consideration all the above facts, it is observed that the whole addition made by the AO is based on deciphering of figures and that too without any perfect logic. The ld. AO could not bring any tangible material evidence in support of the deciphering of figures adopted by him. Therefore the deciphering is not found to be sustainable. The findings given by the ld. CIT (Appeals) as reproduced herein above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) in sustaining the addition to Rs. 2,00,000/- in place of Rs. 3,37,47,000/- made by the AO. We fully agree with the findings of Ld. CIT (A) and thus the grounds of the revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ xxu xks;y ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (Gagan Goyal) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10/11/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- DCIT, Central Circle, Kota. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत