Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 1.49 crores made by the AO under Section 69A for undisclosed cash loans. The addition was based on a seized loose paper containing details of alleged cash loans, which the AO believed were parallel to banking channel transactions.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The seized paper was considered a rough memorandum of tentative repayment or interest dates, not evidence of fresh cash advances. The assessee demonstrated that the amounts were advanced through banking channels and recorded in books, with interest accounted for. Similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee in prior cases.
Key Issues
Whether the seized loose paper constitutes sufficient evidence to treat the mentioned amounts as undisclosed cash loans u/s 69A, when the assessee provided evidence of banking channel transactions and timely repayments.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 69A, 115BBE, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 276/JPR/2024
PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur, for the assessment year 2017-18. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises as against the order dated 25.11.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 by DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur [ for short AO].
1. “1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the evidence based addition made u/s 69A of the IT Act, of Rs.1,49,00,000/- on account of undisclosed cash loan advances, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had made two distinctly different transactions with Sh. Yogendra Garg, Shri Ram Enterprises and Jaina Steels, involving matching amounts: the 1st group of three transactions was made through banking channel before 01/04/2016 ; and 2nd group of three transactions was made in cash on 26/07/2016, 25/08/2016 and 27/07/2016 which have not been recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. Also that the addition was based on documents found during the course of survey proceedings in form of Exhibit 4 of Annexure-A(Page-159).
Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,49,00,000/- on account of cash loan advances u/s 69A without appreciating the fact that the loans of Rs.69,00,000/- , Rs.35,00,000/- and Rs.45,00,000/- as mentioned in aforesaid evidential document against the names of Sh. Yogendra Garg, Shri Ram Enterprises and Jaina Steels are entries different from the loans of Rs.69,00,000/-, Rs.35,00,000/- and Rs.45,00,000/- which were advanced before 01/04/2016 through banking channel; and the AO's addition by treating the entries mentioned in the impounded books of documents is different from the loan recorded in the books of accounts; hence the undisclosed income of Rs.1,49,00,000/- (Rs.69,00,000/- + Rs.35,00,000/- + Rs.45,00,000/-) was rightly added to the total income of the assessee.
Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.13,41,000/- made on account of interest received on alleged advances u/s 69A without appreciating the fact that the assessee has earned interest on the loan advances which is not been recorded in the books of accounts; the AO calculated the interest at the rate of 1% per month considering the fact that cash loan are being advanced at lower rate compared to the rate applied on loan.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.”
3. The background of the case is that a search and survey action was conducted on various premises of the assessee group on 28.07.2016, during which certain loose papers were found and impounded from the premises of the assessee’s group concern. The impounded document, Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Jaipur. being Exhibit-4, Annexure-A, page 159, contained hand-written details of amounts, names of parties, and dates. The Revenue considered these as evidence of fresh cash loans advanced by the assessee in addition to recorded loans.
4. Based on the said impounded paper, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee by issuing notice u/s 147 / 148 of the Act. According to the AO, the assessee had engaged in a modus operandi of making two parallel transactions of equal amounts – one through banking channel duly recorded, and another in cash, unrecorded, to camouflage unaccounted advances. Applying this theory, the AO treated amounts of Rs. 69,00,000/- to Shri Yogendra Garg, Rs. 35,00,000/- to Shri Ram Enterprises, and Rs. 45,00,000/- to Jaina Steels, aggregating to Rs. 1,49,00,000/-, as unexplained cash loans u/s 69A. The AO further computed interest of Rs. 13,41,000/- for the period July 2016 to March 2017 at the rate of 1% per month on these alleged cash advances. The total addition thus made was Rs. 1,62,41,000/- and the same was taxed u/s 115BBE.
5. When the issue was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) who have after examination of the entries, books of accounts, and supporting material furnished by the assessee. He found that the amounts mentioned in the impounded paper were already reflected in the regular books of Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Jaipur. account as advances made through banking channel. The CIT(A) also observed that the impounded paper contained future dates (beyond the date of impounding) and references such as “due date”, which indicated that it was only a rough noting for tentative repayment or interest. Importantly, no corroborative evidence was brought on record by the AO, and no inquiries were conducted from the named parties or brokers. Holding that the addition was based merely on suspicion, the ld. CIT(A) directed to delete the addition of principal amount of Rs. 1,49,00,000/- and consequential interest of Rs. 13,41,000/-.
Before us both the parties have supported the order of the lower authority as favorable to them. The ld. DR in support of the grounds of appeal submitted that the based on the specific information the survey was conducted at the premises that the assessee is engaged in the business of cash loans. The ld. AO recorded the statement of the assessee wherein the assessee accepted the facts recorded on that paper relied upon by the ld. AO. He also submitted that the assessee group was following a modus operandi of advancing loans through cheques as well as in cash of equal amounts to the same parties in order to camouflage unaccounted advances. The seized paper clearly mentions the names of borrowers, amounts and dates distinct from the book entries, evidencing fresh cash loans of Rs. 1.49 crores. It was thus submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in 7. Ld. AR of the assessee while supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) also filed a detailed written submission to support the order of the ld. CIT(A) which reads as follows:
“Brief Facts: Kindly refer Assessment Order.
DGOA-1 & DGOA-2: Addition on Account of Undisclosed Cash Loan of Rs. 1,49,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act - Submission: 1. The impugned addition was correctly deleted by the Id. CIT(A) vide its order dated 28.12.2023. Due to the following points: A. All the subjected transactions of Rs. 1.49 crore were duly recorded by the assessee himself in his books of accounts (refer Ledger A/c of Shri Yogendra Garg: PB 18-30, Ledger A/c of Shri Ram Enterprises: PB 31-32 and Ledger A/c of Jaina Steels: PB 33- 36 in the books of the assessee). Pertinently, no adverse finding has been recorded by the AO regarding such entries. B. That bare perusal of the subjected seized paper Exhibit 4 Annexure A Pg 159: (also refer the typed copy supplied during the time of hearing) (PB - 5), will show that all these entries are tentative entries for receiving of interest etc. In this regard, the 3rd, 4th and 5th entry of subjected seized paper specifically states the word "due date" in front of the entries, which shows that this seized paper was created simply to note down the tentative dates for receipt of interest over loan advanced to various parties through banking channel. Moreover, the concerned party, while paying the interest (to the loans advanced) deducted TDS on the same. C. Importantly, the AO himself in the impugned assessment order has accepted that similar loan was given by the assessee to B.S. Finance Services via banking channel, and is recorded in the regular books of accounts. Pertinently, such loan given to B.S. Finance Services, also finds its reference in the subjected seized paper. However, it is quite surprising and arbitrary that the same logic has not been applied by the AO to the other three parties namely Shri Yogendra Garg, Shri Ram Enterprises & Jaina Steals, wherein also the facts are exactly the same in as much as book entries of loan given has been found in the books of accounts of assessee himself however the same has been ignored or not considered by the AO. The AO cannot act in his own whims and fancies, treating similar entries as different, especially when the same has been arising out of the same loose paper. the D. The case of the AO is that the subjected loose paper shows that cash loan has given to various parties by the assessee on the corresponding date mentioned in the entries. Pertinently the Exhibit-4 Annexure-A & Pg. 159 also contains various entries wherein the corresponding date of alleged loan given is a subsequent date. In other Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Jaipur. words, on the date of search i.e. 28.07.2016, the subjected loose paper was found from the possession of the assessee wherein various entries of future dates is mentioned, for example the entries w.r.t Shri Ram Enterprises corresponding date mentioned is 25.08.2016, Shri Rajendra Kumar Bardiya the corresponding date mentioned is 13.08.2016 and M/s Lining Infrastructure the corresponding date mentioned is 10.08.2016. Therefore, going by the logic of AO, leads to a unusual conclusion that the alleged cash loan has been given on a subsequent future date, and entry for same is made today itself, which is not at all possible rather impossible. E. The AO in the entire proceeding has neither brough any evidence on record nor has noted any conclusive finding (based on any corroborative evidence), as to how he came to a conclusion that the assessee has additionally given alleged cash loan of the exact same amount to the exact same party, over and above the already recorded loan given via banking channel to such parties. Importantly, there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had given a separate cash loan, over and above the already recorded loan given via banking channel. F. That no inquire was made from the subjected 3rd parties about the receipt of additional cash loan from the assessee nor any inquire was made from the broker (specifically when the broker's name has been mentioned in every entry). G. Covered Issue: Importantly this Hon'ble ITAT in Chandra Parkash HUF vs. DCIT (father of the assessee of the instant case) vide its order dt. 27.01.2021 (PB 6-20), while considering exactly the similar issue of alleged cash loan having been given arising from the very subjected lose paper the exhibit -4 Annexure-A pg. 159, held as under: "22. We have heard the rival submissions and purused the material available on record. The case of the Revenue is that the assessee has made two different type of transactions with M/s Columbus Overseas LLP. The first transaction of Rs. 25,00,000/- was made through banking channel on 14.08.2015 and second transaction was made in cash which was not recorded in books of accounts. Hence, the cash loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- mentioned in the paper seized during the course of search is different from the loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- which was advance to M/s Columbus Overseas LLP through banking channel on 14.08.2015 and recorded in its books of account. The case of the assessee however is that it is the same loan transaction duly reflected in its books of accounts on 14.08.2015 and the date of 27.07.2016 is mentioned as the tentative date of repayment of the said loan and the same has subsequently been rolled over for further period on receipt of interest which has been duly accounted for and TDS reflected thereon. The Revenue has based its conclusion on analyzing two other entries in the same seized paper relating to Pooja Agarwal and Chandra Prakash Agarwal and found that the dates mentioned in the seized paper reflects the date of advancement of loan and which also matches with the respective assessee's books of accounts and thus, other entries in the said seized paper also relates to advancement of loan and not the date of repayment or tentative date of repayment of loan. The assessee has however submitted that the seized papers contains in total 18 entries and where other entries are also analyzed, it would be clear that a general analogy cannot be drawn that all such entries relates to date of Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Jaipur. advancement of loan rather each entries need to be look into given its peculiarity and specifics of the transaction. Our reference was drawn to entry dated 13.08.2016 relating to Rajendra Kumar Bardiya, entry dated 25.08.2016 relating to Shri Ram Enterprises and entry dated 10.08.2016 relating to Leading Infrastructure and it was submitted that search was conducted on 28.07.2016 and therefore, date of these entries cannot by any stretch of imagination be taken as date of advancement of loan. Similarly. our reference was drawn to eight other entries relating to various persons all dated 27.07.2016 and it was submitted that given the amount so stated in these entries, all these transactions cannot be stated to be undertaken on a single day. We find force in the contentions so advanced by the ld AR that each of the entries reflect individual transactions with either date of advancement or repayment or tentative date of repayment and therefore, a generalized conclusion cannot be drawn basis review of just two entries where other entries applying same hypothesis will give a very incomprehensible conclusion. Given that there is no other corroborative evidence on record that the assessee has advanced such amount during the year under consideration, merely basis the reading and analysis of the seized document as a whole, it cannot be held that the assessee has entered into a fresh and different transaction with M/s Columbus Overseas LLP, other than the one which is duly recorded in its books of accounts. Thus, the addition of Rs 25 lacs and consequent addition of interest of Rs 2 lacs is hereby directed to be deleted. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed." Therefore, the Hon'ble ITAT in Chandra Prakash Agarwal HUF (supra), has discussed the impugned addition of alleged cash loan w.r.t the same subjected loose paper & same allegation of the AO and thereafter the Hon'ble ITAT has deleted the said addition. H. Covered Issue: The Id. CIT(A) in the case of Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs. DCIT (A.Y. 2017-18) vide its order (refer Pg. 103 & Pr. 6.5) deleted similar addition of alleged cash loan given (based on the same subjected loose paper) and relying upon the order of the Hon'ble ITAT in Chandar Prakash Agarwal HUF vs. DCIT (supra) has deleted the addition made by the AO on account of cash loan given to Shri Rajendra Kumar Bardiya & Chandar Mohan Badaya. Pertinently against the said order of the Id. CIT(A), no appeal has been preferred by the department till date and thus rather accepted the said judgement. I. Furthermore, strong is reliance placed is on the order of the Id. CIT(A) dated 28.12.2023 and also upon written submission filed before the CIT(A) (reproduced at pg. 14 to 18 of the Id. CIT(A) order). The above submissions have been made based on the instructions and the information provided of/by the client.”
Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Jaipur. 7.1 To support the various contentions raised in the written submission the assessee filed a paper book containing the following evidences in support of the contentions so raised:-
S. No. Particulars Page Nos.
Copy of Income tax return filed dated 29.07.2017 along with 1-4 computation of total Income 2. Copy of loose paper seized and inventoried as page no 159 of 5 Annexure A exhibit-4 3. Copy of Order dated 27.01.2021 passed by Hon'ble ITAT in the 6-20 case of Sh. Chandra Prakash Agarwal HUF for the AY: 2017- 18.
Copy of reply filed before Ld. AO during the course of 21-23 assessment proceedings 5. Copy of Income tax return filed in response to notice u/s 148 24-27 along with computation of total Income 6. Copy of ledger account of Sh. Yogendra Garg for FY 2016-17 28-30 alongwith copy of bank statement for verification of money advanced 7. Copy of ledger account of Shri Ram Enterprises for FY 2016-17 31-32 alongwith copy of bank statement for verification of money advanced 8. Copy of ledger account of Jaina Steel corporation for FY 2016- 33-36 17 alongwith copy of bank statement for verification of money advanced 9. Copy of Bank Statement of Bank of Baroda for FY 2016-17 for 37-38 receiving Interest income 10. Copy of form 26AS for TDS deducted by parties for FY 2016- 39-40 17 11. Copy of written submission dated 16.02.2022 filed before Ld. 41-54 CIT(A)-4
In addition to the written submission ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1.49 crores made by the Assessing Officer. It was argued that the amounts of Rs. 69,00,000/-, Rs. 35,00,000/- and Rs. 45,00,000/- appearing in the impounded paper are duly reflected in the books of the Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Jaipur. assessee and advanced through proper banking channels. The assessee has furnished ledger copies and bank statements in support, and interest income on these loans has been accounted for and subjected to TDS, which is further corroborated by the Form no. 26AS. It was contended that the impounded document, Annexure-A, Exhibit-4, page 159, is nothing more than a rough memorandum prepared for administrative convenience and contains tentative dates of repayment or interest due dates. This contention is fortified by the mention of the expression “due date” against some entries. The ld. AR emphasized that certain dates mentioned in the paper such as 10.08.2016, 13.08.2016 and 25.08.2016 fall after the date of search i.e. 28.07.2016, and therefore cannot represent fresh cash advances. Similarly, eight entries are dated 27.07.2016 across different parties involving large sums; it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that crores of rupees were advanced in cash on a single day. It was further submitted that in Jaipur’s private finance market it is a common practice that loans are initially advanced for a short period and on payment of interest are rolled over for further periods. The dates appearing in the impounded sheet reflect such repayment or rollover dates and not fresh disbursement of loans. The ld. AR pointed out that the Assessing Officer himself has accepted a similar entry relating to B.S. Finance Services as genuine yet treated others as cash loans without assigning any valid Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Jaipur. distinction, which shows inconsistency in approach of the ld.AO. The addition has been made without any corroborative material; no borrower or broker has been examined, no independent verification has been carried out, and the entire addition rests on suspicion and conjecture. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Chandra Prakash Agarwal HUF vs. DCIT (ITA No. 924/JP/2019, order dated 27.01.2021), where on identical facts and the very same impounded page 159, the addition was deleted holding that the document was only a rough jotting and no separate cash advances were proved. On the parity of reasoning, the ld. AR urged that the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1.49 crores deserve to be confirmed.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. Record reveals that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the premise that the figures appearing in Annexure-A, Exhibit-4, page 159 represent fresh cash advances outside the books. However, we find that the explanation offered by the assessee carries greater conviction. The assessee has filed ledger accounts and bank statements evidencing that the very same amounts of Rs. 69,00,000, Rs. 35,00,000 and Rs. 45,00,000 stand advanced through banking channels, duly recorded in the books and interest thereon subjected to TDS. The Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Jaipur. seized page itself contains the expression “due date” against certain entries which supports the version that the noting’s are in the nature of repayment or rollover dates. Further, certain dates such as 10.08.2016, 13.08.2016 and 25.08.2016 are subsequent to the date of searchi.e. 28.07.2016 and cannot be interpreted as dates of cash advancement. There are also as many as nine entries dated 27.07.2016 across different parties and different lenders and if one were to accept the AO’s hypothesis, it would imply that crores of rupees were simultaneously advanced in cash on a single day, a conclusion which is highly improbable in the ordinary course. The contention of the assessee that the impugned sheet is a rough memorandum for administrative purposes appears more reasonable and is corroborated by the fact that similar entry in respect of B.S. Finance Services was accepted by the AO himself. The addition has been made without carrying out any corroborative enquiry from the concerned borrowers or brokers. In the absence of such convincing evidence, the presumption of fresh cash advances cannot be sustained. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Chandra Prakash Agarwal HUF vs. DCIT (ITA No. 924/JP/2019, order dated 27.01.2021) has examined the very same seized page 159 and has held that no addition could be sustained merely on the basis of such notings without supporting material. Respectfully following the said decision and applying the same Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Jaipur. reasoning, we concur with the finding so recorded in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and thereby hold that he has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1.49 crores. Since we have directed to delete that addition the issue of addition of interest is consequential in nature and thereby when the principal amount of addition is not survived, the consequential interest also does not survive. It was further submitted that interest on these loans has already been accounted for in the books and offered to tax, which is substantiated by Form 26AS reflecting deduction of tax at source by the borrowers. No evidence has been brought on record to show that the assessee has earned any additional cash interest. The computation of interest @1% per month for 8 months by the AO is arbitrary and without any basis. There is no agreement or receipt evidencing any such cash interest. The ld. AR submitted that the addition is unsustainable both in law and on facts and rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). As is evident from the record that the Assessing Officer has estimated interest @1% per month on the alleged cash advances. Since we have already held that the addition of Rs. 1.49 crores does not survive, the consequential addition of interest also fails. The assessee has demonstrated that interest earned on the loans advanced through banking channels has been duly credited in its books, offered to tax and corroborated by Form 26AS showing deduction of tax at source. There is no independent and/or incriminating material to Sh. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Jaipur. show that any separate cash interest has been received. Estimation of interest by the AO is without basis and unsustainable. The ld. CIT(A) was therefore justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,41,000. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/09/2025.