OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

by the assessee is unexplained in the hands of the assessee. In that order it has been categorically held that “Shri Om Prakash Gupta purchased the various land in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena who is Benamidar” as

per the detailed reasons as much as point (a) to (x) given in the said order at page 33 to 35.

As regards the retraction of the statement by Shri Ram Singh Meena he was issued summons to examine him about the retraction but he did not turned up. Even the search was conducted at the premises of Shri Rajesh Kabra and for that at page 37 and 38 shows as to how he become the the assessee.

Ld. DR also argued that the majority of the money that has been transferred from the account of M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited. The said company is controlled and managed by the assessee and his family members. The source of the funds given from the company has not been examined and thereby the investment made were routed through that company and that being so the addition is required to be confirmed as

per the detailed finding given in the order of the adjudicating authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988 and the orders of the ld. CIT(A).

As regards the cash deposited into the bank account of the assessee explained to have been out of the withdrawal of Shri Ram Singh Meena was not established. Therefore, that cash deposit itself proves the contention of the revenue that the assessee is covered with in the provision of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988 and thereby that income is that of the assessee. The person, in whose name all the investment made is not having proper means to invest in such a huge fund which has been financed by the assessee and/or by the company owned by him and his family members. He also supported the orders of the lower authority the money deposited and other material so as to consider the contention of the revenue that the investment made by Shri Ram Singh Meena is of the assessee and thereby the same is required to be taxed in the hands of the assessee.

Based on these set of facts and relying on the provision of section 69 of the Act and various judicial precedent cited he submitted that since the investment made by the assessee is not recorded in the books of account of the assessee and the source of that money is also not established he supported the finding recorded in the orders of the lower authority because Shri Ram Singh Meena is a person having no means to invest such a huge money.

On another day of hearing the ld. DR submitted that the corporate veils are required to be lifted looking to the fact that all the investment made by Shri Ram Singh Meena has been routed through a company formed by the assessee and his family members for their benefit and the Shri Ram Singh Meena is mere conduit for making such huge investment. As is evident from the chart placed on record that all the property which was alleged to have been purchased by Shri Ram Singh Meena were either financed by the assessee or that of the financial help given by M/s. Om not recorded that asset in his books of account same is required to be taxed in his hands. To support that contention he relied upon the Balance Sheet of the company wherein the debit in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena and the credit of the assessee is reflected. This fact further got supported from the paper found in the form of MOU wherein the assessee has finalized the terms and condition of the MOU. He stated that this aspect of the matter is discussed at page 111 & 112 of the order passed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988. Thus, ld. DR heavily relied upon the circumstantial evidence in the form of cheque book, MOU and PAN number applied by the assessee, provision of section 69 and 292C of the Act and finding recorded in the order passed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988.

He also submitted based on the record that the assessee was in possession of the two separate PAN numbers. The earlier PAN number allotted him was not used by him and another PAN was applied by the office of the assessee.

Conclusively ld. DR submitted that ld. AO correctly made two addition one of the credit in the bank account which has not been explained by Shri Ram Singh Meena but was financed by the assessee out of his undisclosed Ram Singh Meena who has no means to invest such a huge fund and based on the documents found at the time of search at the premises of the assessee the addition of the investment is squarely covered as per the provision of section 69 of the Act.

10. In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the case of M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited has already been examined and there is no addition as to unexplained credit which that company has advanced to Shri Ram Singh Meena and thus the accounted transaction irrespective of the finding under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988 cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee when the company who advanced the money in that case source of the investment has been examined by passing scrutiny order. In those years there is no finding that the investment made by that company whose source is not genuine. As is evident that the AO of the assessee and that of the company being same how he can take a contradictory stand that in the case of the assessee hold that the source is not clear and in the case of the company named M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited hold that source and investment are satisfactory explained and he passed accepting contention that the issue has been examined in that company’s case he cited the notices issued in the case of M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited which reads as follows:

He also submitted that for the reason best known to the revenue Shri Ram Singh Meena was not searched. No Cognizance of the money received, and the investment made were made and even the capital gain income shown by him was accepted by the revenue in that case how the addition of the accounted transaction of a two separate entity be taxed in the hands of the assessee. As regards the holding of two PAN he submitted that date of birth in both the cases are different; Whereas page 170 Party A-12 Exhibit 6 show the date of birth of Shri Ram Singh Meena as under:

Singh Meena alleged to have been considered as Benamidar, no addition was propose of the source and capital gain on the sale of the property were already taxed in his hand in that case how the addition will survive and under which provision of the Income Tax Act provide such power to tax third party transactions. Therefore, the contention of the revenue of having two PAN without verification of these basic details has no bearing and the law provide to levy the penalty in the hands of the Shri Ram Singh Meena and thereby that fact will not hold the assessee liable to be taxed on the accounted transaction for which the source has already been verified by the revenue. The company M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited is separate entity and the money have been invested by the shareholder and not the assessee alone. When the transaction between Shri Ram Singh Meena and M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited were not disbelieved how the accounted transaction in the other’s books of account can be considered as deemed income of the assessee. Section 69 does not empower to tax the investment made by the other person’s name. Even the attachment made considering the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988 were released by the revenue by an order of the High Court as such.

As regards the contention that the revenue has filed the review petition based on the decision of the supreme court the matter is not listed and even the notice was not served to the assessee so far from the revenue or that of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court.

11. After completing the arguments of the ld. DR, ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit to counter the contentions of the revenue with a covering letter dated 29.08.2025. The content of the letter and affidavit reads as follows:

Kindly refer to the hearing concluded in the captioned cases before the Hon'ble Court on 20.08.2025.

In the matter, it is submitted that as directed by the Hon'ble Court during the course of hearing on 20.08.2025, necessary reply along with documents was required to be filed on or before 29.08.2025 with reference to the contention raised by the Id. DR specifically for table appearing at page No. 106 of the order of the Adjudicating Authority, Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 having reference No. R-1550/2019 which order is passed u/s 26(3) of PBPT Act dated 08.06.2020.

In compliance of the said directions, an affidavit of the assessee duly notarized is attached herewith and it is submitted that proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 and that of Income Tax Act, 1961 are independent and separate and the page referred by Id. DR appears to be seized from the residence of one Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia during the course of search conducted in his case under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and neither the name of assessee is appearing nor his signatures are there nor is his handwriting to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT appearing in that table which is seized from the possession of third party. Also there is no wisper of this page No. 106 in the assessment orders passed in the case of captioned assessee and therefore finding so recorded at third party is not binding on the assessee.

Further the affidavit is made in support of the contention raised and to counter the contention of the ld. DR so as to counter the finding stated by Adjudicating Authority which are incorrect. Also the income tax assessments of M/s Om Shree Ram Infrareal Pvt. Ltd. has been done by the same Ld. AO which has attained finality and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn in the case of captioned assessee particularly when the sources has been verified and accepted. Moreover no action has been taken in the case of Shri Ram Singh Meena by the department.

In the circumstances, the contention raised by the assessee deserves to be accepted.

The affidavit so filed in support reads as follows: record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The bench noted that in the lead case Ground no. 1 to 5.1 deals with the one issue of credit in the bank account of Shri Ram Singh Meena be added in the hands of the assessee or not as unexplained credit and with that credit balance the investment so made by the assessee be considered as unexplained investment of the assessee or not.

12.1 The brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 16.01.2019 at the various premises of Om Agarwal Group, Jaipur. Because of that action notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21-09-2020. The assessee returned the same income as was declared in the original return filed u/s. 139 of the Act. Required notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued from time to time to the assessee. The assessee complied with such notices.

The assessee derives income from salary from M/s Professional Automative Private Limited, business or profession, interest from bank and income from other source during the year under consideration.

(Benami Prohibition), Rajasthan, Jaipur that the assessee has deposited amounts in the bank account of Shri Ram Singh Meena and transaction were made in his bank account through a Special Power of Attorney given in the name of Shri Rajesh Kabra who is used as a conduit of the assessee to operate the bank account of Shri Ram Singh Meena and he was held as a Benamidar of the assessee in terms of Prohibition of Benami Properties Transaction Act 1988.

Since that proceedings were going on under the separate Act simultaneously, we have limited the scope of the addition based on the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 and thereby charging provision of the investment or that of the credit under dispute in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena. The prayer of the revenue that since they have filed the review petition before our Hon’ble High Court and also because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. [(2022) 141 taxmann.com 389 (SC)] held that criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings could not be initiated under the 2016 Act for transactions that took place prior to 25.10.2016. The Hon'ble Court also held Sections 3 and 5 of the unamended 1988 Act to be unconstitutional from inception. Based on that judgment, the Hon'ble 1392/2019 (Ram Singh Meena vs. Dy Commissioner (Benami Prohibition)) passed order dated 31.08.2022, revoking the provisional attachment orders made under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act.

Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has since recalled the earlier decision dated 23.08.2022 in Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.

5783/2022) and has admitted the review petition filed by the Union of India.

Thus, the validity of the earlier decision and the consequential effect on all pending matters, including the present appeals, is sub judice before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of the above development and in the interest of justice, the Revenue prayed that the present appeals be adjourned sine die until final adjudication of the review petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the outcome will have a direct bearing on the merits of these cases.

On this aspect on being asked we have been informed that, so the matter is at admission stage the High Court or that of the Apex Court in that case not granted any stay. Even we note from the order of Adjudicating Authority placed on record where in that authority vide para 4 considered following enquiries and based on that they have made the case of the assessee;

4. Mainly following enquiries were carried out:

to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT (i) Summons u/s 19(1)(b) of the PBPT Act was issued to the Sub-Registrar, Amer, District Jaipur requiring him to furnish the certified copies of all the sale deeds/POAs/Exchange deeds registered in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena. In response to this summons, certified copies of certain sale deeds, POAs and exchange deeds were furnished by the Sub- Registrar, Amer, District Jaipur. These documents were examined and analysed. (ii) The website of Govt. of Rajasthan regarding the land records (i.e. http://apnakhata.raj.nic.in) was examined regarding the lands purchased in the na me of Shri Ram Singh Meena. (iii) Certified copies of the latest jamabandi (land record) of the lands purchased in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena were obtained from the Tehsildar - Amer, District-Jaipur. (iv) Summons u/s 19(1)(b) of the PBPT Act were issued to the branch manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur and he was requested to furnish the certified copies of account opening form alongwith KYC documents and statement of the bank account number 5111215909 opened in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in that branch. These documents were received from that branch and the same were examined. (v) Copies of the relevant documents seized and statements recorded during a search conducted by the ADIT(Inv.), Unit-Kota were called for from the office of the ADIT(Inv.), Unit-Kota u/s 21 of the PBPT Act, The ADIT(Inv.), Unit-Kota provided copies of the relevant documents seized and statements recorded during search conducted by the Kota Unit of the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in the case of Om Agarwal Group of Sawai Madhopur. These details were also examined. (vi) Enquiries were also made from the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), Jaipur. (vii) Shri Ram Singh Meena was summoned for statement u/s 19(1)(b) of the PBPT Act but he did not appear. (viii) Enquiries were made from the ITD system of Income Tax Department regarding payment of taxes by Shri Ram Singh Meena.

As is evident from the above that while deciding that case no financial transaction or that of any finding to that effect have been considered. Not only that the present proceedings being under the different Act i.e. under the Income Tax Act and that matter which is disputed, and pending is in PBPT] being different from that we do not find any force in the prayer of the revenue. Even otherwise the assessee filed the stay petition too before this tribunal and therefore, in the interest of substantial justice we proceeded to take up the appeal under the Income Tax Act on its merits of the dispute.

12.3 Before we deal with that matter it would be appropriate to deal with the primary issue to be decided in the present appeal is that whether based on the facts and on the circumstances of the case the addition of Rs. 16,09,07,018/-, made for the investment made by Shri Ram Singh Meena is required to be sustained or not.

Before we go into the matter to decide the issue on hand it is clear from the orders of the lower authority and since the revenue disputes the source to the extent of Rs. 7,97,79,167/- only the balance amount of investment’s source is not disputed by the revenue on the fact and source of that amount.

No material whatsoever was placed before us to whether the investment of the balance amount was sourced from the assessee even though specific question was raised and thereby, they [ revenue ] relied Property Transaction Act 1988.

We also take note of the fact that before us no records be that it is incriminating or not were not placed on record about the source of that investment so made by Shri Ram Singh Meena. Be that it may so whether based on that fact whether the provision of section 69 be applied in the case of the assessee for that investment amount or not. For that first let us examine the provision of section 69 of the Act which reads as under; Unexplained investments.

These primary facts were not disputed by the revenue when asked at the time of hearing of the present appeal. But the only dispute is that the based on the evidence gathered at the time of search revenue hold that the assessee is the beneficial owner of the investment made by Shri Ram Singh Meena and the source of the money invested was unexplained CIT(A) he hold a view that ;

I do not agree with the argument of the Id. AR that on this ground both of the additions may deleted. Addition in respect of lesser of two amounts deserves to be deleted while sustaining the addition in respect of higher of the two amounts of addition.

Here we note that while deciding the appeal of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the credit (Source of money) and the debit (Utilization of money) of the money both cannot be added. Having held so and the revenue has not disputed that finding of the ld. CIT(A) we deal with the appeal of the assessee based on that settled finding.

If we considered this finding on overall aspect of the case leaving a part on the allegation on the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has already held that addition of higher of two can be made.

But while doing so when the source is established to have been clear and there is no finding of the lower authority of the source of making the investment is not unexplained then even that finding needs to be decided to the extent of the credit which remains unexplained only and thereby that amount be taxed and not both. we have gone through the records and as is evident from the following chart that has been prepared based on the facts the source of the source money so received by Shri Ram Singh Meena is tabulated herein below ;

The contention of the assessee is that for the investment contention taken by the revenue based on the statement of Shri Ram Singh Meena assessee and no material as to counter the contention of the assessee was placed on record.

In the light of that facts and in the absence of that material being not placed on record the investment made is already accepted and taxed in the case of Shri Ram Singh Meena the law does not empower us to sustain that addition in the absence of any material and that too based on a statement which was late on retracted. On that aspect of the matter we note from the order of the Adjudicating Authority that they have observed on that event that;

Even the ld. DR stated that the power of attorney holder Shri Rajesh Kabra who is relative of the assessee was searched and he has in his statement confirmed the following facts;

11. Meanwhile, a search & seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was also carried out at the residential premises of Shri Rajesh Kabra (the person who has executed registered sale deeds in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena as his Special Power of Attorney holder) by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. During this search proceedings, his statement was recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the income-tax Act, 1961. In this statement, Shri Rajesh kabra stated that:

to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT a) He had signed the sale deeds on behalf of Shri Ram Singh Meena on the basis of one Power of Attorney received by him from Shri Ram Singh Meena. b) He had handed over this original Power of Attorney to Shri Ram Singh Meena 5-7 days ago through Shri Bharat Sharma as a search action and action under the benami act had been initiated against Shri Ram Singh Meena by the Income Tax Department as per him. c) He is close relative of Shri Om Agarwal and generally goes to the Om Group's office. He uses the Fortuner car of Om Group too. d) He has not seen the lands purchased by him in the capacity of Shri Ram Singh Meena's Power of Attorney holder but were or might had been seen by Shri Ram Singh Meena only. e) Sometimes mutations were got opened in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena by him. Shri Ram Singh Meena had given him power of attorney for opening mutations also. f) He is familiar with Shri R.K. Sisodia and his driver Shri Bhupesh Mathur. g) He is known to Shri R.K. Sisodia as a few registered sale deeds were executed by Shri R.K. Sisodia in Shri Ram Singh Meena's favour. h) Shri R.K. Sisodia was present at the time of registration of some of the sale deeds executed in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena. i) Shri Ramjilal Meena had executed 1 or 2 sale deeds in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena. j) He had also operated the bank account held in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena and also signed on the cheques drawn on this bank account. k) Shri Ram Singh Meena used to meet him at the railway station or at bus stand when Shri Ram Singh Meena used to come to Jaipur for land dealings and Shri Ram Singh Meena used to inform him about his arrival through mobiles/phone. l) He had not charged any fees/commission/amount from Shri Ram Singh Meena for these land deals. Shri Rajesh Kabra has given evasive answers to the most of the questions asked to him during the search proceedings by stating 'Shri Ram Singh Meena will know about it' or 'why Shri Ram Singh Meena said this can be explained by him only' etc. But, it was evident that Shri Rajesh Kabra is a close relative and close confidant of Shri Om Agarwal (i.e. Shri Om Prakash Gupta). Shri Om Agarwal was a common link between Shri Ram Singh Meena and Shri Rajesh Kabra. Both Shri Rajesh Kabra and Shri Ram Singh Meena were under influence of Shri Om Agarwal, therefore, Shri Om Agarwal got the Power of Attorney registered in the name of Shri Rajesh Kabra from Shri Ram Singh Meena and got the lands registered in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena through him. The statement of Shri Rajesh Kabra was contrary also to the statement of Shri Ram Singh Meena recorded u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. emerges as to the assessee gives his unaccounted money to purchase the property in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena. Thus, that statement has also no relation to the addition made in the hands of the assessee.

We also note from that order of the PBPT at para 12 wherein it has been alleged that Shri Ram Singh Meena is of no means and he has no credit worthiness for purchasing such a huge land. Had been it been that finding so as to fasten the liability to explain the credit worthiness in the hands of the Shri Ram Singh Meena action was required to be taken and there the credit of the money was required to be established as unexplained or not. Having not done so now that finding is against the set of facts already accepted by the revenue.

As regards the contention of the revenue that the assessee is having two PAN but we note from the order of the PBPT wherein the date of birth referred were different as is evident from the following table extracted from the order of the PBPT

We also note from page 170 Party A-12 Exhibit 6 show the date of birth of Shri Ram Singh Meena was 01.01.1969. revenue to bring the correct facts on record as to the affairs of Shri Ram Singh Meena. We also note as to the contention of the proceeds flowing as contended by the revenue and the assessee filed the counter affidavit to counter the contention of the revenue that recorded at page 106 of the order of the PBPT was not confronted to the assessee and for that the assessee filed a detailed affidavit in the matter. Therefore, that aspect of the matter has no leg to stand. We also note from the para 20 of the PBPT order that the assessee was considered the beneficial owner merely because the assessee did not appear in the proceeding under PBPT but finding as to the source of money flowed from the assessee. The summary of account as found and relied was not found from the premises of the assessee but was found from the premises of Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia and as stated by the assessee in an affidavit that this facts were not confronted to him and that page does not record any finding as to the unexplained money or investment in the case of the assessee. As is evident from that order that in the conclusion drawn in the case of the PBPT which reads as under;

(xiv) Shri Ram Singh Meena is a person of ittle means. He does not have credit worthiness to purchase the lands under reference including the said land) (xv) Shri Om Prakash Gupta and Mis Om Shree Ram Infrarsal Private Limited have purchased various lands in Villages Kukas and Khora Meena, Tehsil to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT Amer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena and all the sale consideration was paid or provided by Shri Om Prakash Gupta and M/s Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited only. (xvi) These lands (including the said land) were never used by Shri Ram Singh Meena but were used by Shri Om Prakash Gupta and Mis Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited only for their own benefits. (xvii) These lands (including the said land) belong to persons of Scheduled Tribes. As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1956 any agricultural land belonging to a person of Scheduled Tribe Category can be purchased by a person of Scheduled Tribe Category only. (xviii) Shri Rajesh Kabra is a close relative and confident of Shri Om Prakash special power Gupta. Therefore. Shri Om Prakash Gupta took a attomey from Shri Ram Singh Meena in the name of Shn Rajesh Kabra Shri Rajesh Kabra signed all the sale deeds an Singh Meena as a buyer. Shri Ram Singh Meena was even not aware which properties were being purchased in his name. of behalf of Shri Ram (xix) Bank account in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena was opened in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur which was used and operated by Shn Rajesh Kabra (on the basis of the power of attorney) for the sole benefit of Shri Om Prakash Gupta as discussed in forgoing paragraphs of this order. (xx) The lands were purchased for the sole benefits of Shri Om Prakash Gupta and Mis Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited. Shri Ram Singh Meena did not get any benefits from these lands. (xxi) Income Tax Returns were filed on the PAN of Shri Ram Singh Meena by Shri Om Prakash Gupta for which a new PAN was obtained in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in 2012 (ie the year in which agricultural lands were started purchasing in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena) (xxii) An MOU was executed by Shri Om Prakash Gupta with Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia for joint development of lands including the lands purchased the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia had purchased benami lands in the names of Shri Ramjilal Meena, Shri Ramdhan Meena and Smt Sita Devi. Many of these lands were got transferred by Shri-Om Prakash Gupta in the name of his benamidar Shri Ram Singh Meena on the basis of this MOU. (xxiii) Internet banking and mobile banking facilities were availed on mobile is the number 9414045253 (belongs to Shri Rachit Agarwal sio Shri Om info.omgroup@gmail.com Prakash The registered e-mail id of the bank account number 5111215009 opened Gupta) e-mail id in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sardar number 9414045253 to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT in the mobile Patel Marg. Jaipur Similarly. registered mobile number of this bank account. (xxiv) Shri Ram Singh Meena did not furnish any submission on the contents of the Show Cause Notices issued uls 24(1) of the PBPT Act despite ample opportunities provided to him. An affidavit had been filed on Singh Meena before the ADU(Inv) Unit- Kota 131 of the recorded Rajasthan retracting Income-tax Act, 1961 The Authority under the Benami Act wanted to examine Shri Ram Singh Meena to examine the veracity of the contents of the affidavit Number of opportunities were provided to him by the undersigned to appear personally and to explain his case but he chose not to appear before the undersigned for the same. (xxv) Shri Om Prakash Gupta did not furnish any submission on the contents of the Show Cause Notices issued to Shri Ram Singh Meena uls 24(1) of the PBPT Act [and served upon Shri Om Prakash Gupta as per the Act] despite PBPT of 24(2) of the ample section provisions opportunities provided to him. (xxvi) M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited did not fumish submission on the contents of the Show Cause Notices issued to Shri Ram Singh Meena uls 24(1) of the PBPT Act [and served upon M/s Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited as per the provisions of section 24(2) of the PBPT ActĮ despite ample opportunities provided it.

The above finding does not specify as to what is the material which shows that there was unexplained money flowing to Shri Ram Singh Meena and thereby the addition can be made. Thus we note that merely the statement without any supporting evidence was relied upon by the revenue which was retracted by him. Since Shri Ram Singh Meena did not appear again in the PBPT proceeding the contention was not accepted. The revenue did not place on record any incriminating material demonstrating that the assessee has in fact financed the money for making the investment in the property purchased by Shri Ram Singh Meena independently. Thus, corroborative evidence and even when that statement so relied upon retracted no addition can be made. This view has already been taken by our own Rajasthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Esspal International P. Ltd [ 166 taxmann.com 722 (Rajasthan) ] wherein the High Court held that ;

11. Now it is a matter of record that Shirish Chandrakant Shah had retracted his statements given before the Assessing Officer. Even otherwise, an admission by the assessee cannot be said to be a conclusive piece of evidence. The admission of the assessee in absence of any corroborative evidence to strengthen the case of the Revenue cannot be made the basis for any addition. Therefore, the substantial questions of law framed by the appellant pertained to an open issue which stands concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; one such decision was rendered in "M/s Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala And Another" [1973] 19 ITR 18.

Respectfully following the above binding precedent, we are of the considered view that merely based on the statement which was retracted no addition can be made.

12.4 Be that it may so now let us examine the credit amount in the Bank account of Shri Ram Singh Meena added in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money for an amount of Rs. 7,94,79,167/-. From the bank statement already on record on the fact of that addition it was contended that out of the disputed credit on account of bounced cheque for an amount cannot be sustained as they in fact are not credit balance in that bank account. Since, there is no contrary evidence to the factual position argued supported by the evidence on record that there was bounced back cheque credit for an amount of Rs. 1,90,75,000/- revenue did not dispute that factual part and the ld. AO through ld. DR did not dispute that amount and the amount of calculation error for Rs. 4,86,667/- out of total alleged deposit of Rs. 7,94,79,167/- the actual deposit which requires finding as to whether these credits can be considered as unexplained money for an amount of Rs. 5,99,17,500/- or not.

Records reveal that for the lead year credit in the bank account of Shri Ram Singh Meena wherein the source of source in the account of the Shri Ram Singh Meena considered not disputed is as under because revenue accepted that submission of the assessee and no action was proposed in the case of Shri Ram Singh Meena and in the case of M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited ; Cash deposit made by Ram Singh Meena out of earlier withdrawals Rs. 18,53,500/- Cheque received by him independently Rs. 11,000/- Credit received from M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited Rs.5,80,53,000/-

As it is available on the record that on the same very facts of the Investment made by M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited that investment made by that company with Shri Ram Singh Meena not only that the source for making that credit was verified and accepted and thereby there is no finding in that company’s case that the source of the source of making the investment with Shri Ram Singh Meena was sourced from the assessee or it was unexplained and that company unable to explain the credit reflected in their books.

Thus, when their credit is accepted and not established to have been invested from the undisclosed source of the assessee by placing any evidence on record and once that fact in the case of company’s assessment the source and that of the investment was not disputed by the revenue how that addition which was assessed as such and considered to have been explained in that company’s case be considered as unexplained money in the case of the assessee. To examine that we deal with the provision of section 68 of the Act which reads as under:

Cash credits.

As is evidence that there is no credit in the books of account in the case of the assessee which remains unexplained. Not only that revenue has considered the credit in the account of Shri Ram Singh Meena as explained and no action was proposed in that case and in the case of the company who have financed that credit. Based on that set of facts we see no reason to sustain the addition of credit in the bank account of Shri Ram that addition of Rs. 7,94,79,167/- and the same is directed to be deleted.

In addition, we also note that as the source was not disputed nor was any incriminating material found to establish that the credit made in the books of M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited was sourced by the assessee by way of illegal credit entries or thereby remained unexplained.

Having not established so by the revenue taxing the credit in the books of Shri Ram Singh Meena as unexplained money or the investment made by him as unexplained investment of the assessee is somewhat fastening the tax liability on accounted transactions treating it as unaccounted and that too in the case of the assessee without bringing any tangible material for doing so.

The bench also noted that the revenue while assessing the case of the company M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited knows the real facts of the case of the assessee and having noted that facts accepted the investment not only that credit of that company was not established to have been bogus or flowed from the assessee. This can be accepted to have been happen if the officer who deal with the case of the assessee and that of the company is different but when the officer who passed the order in the aspect of the matter cannot be accepted.

12.5 Be that it may so having alleged to have such a serious addition or allegation to the assessee revenue has not taxed the gain or loss on account of the property in hands of the assessee but made it to tax in the hands of Shri Ram Singh Meena thereby accepting that the credit and investment as from genuine sources. This dual standard cannot be accepted. Here also we would like to press emphasis that the officers handing the case of the assessee and that of the company or that Shri Ram Singh Meena would have taken a conscious decision to place on record the correct facts. Having observed so we would like to reiterate the quote of famous lawyer of the country Shri Nani Palkhivala about the collection of tax which reads as under:

“Taxes are the life blood of any government, but it cannot be over emphasized that the blood is taken from the arteries of the tax payers and therefore, the transfusion has to be accomplished with the principles of Justice and fair play” “Every Government has right to levy taxes, But no government has the right in the process of extracting tax, to cause misery and harassment to the taxpayer and the gnawing feeling that he is made a victim of palpable injustice”

We also would like to deal with the contention of the revenue that the assessee is found to be in possession of cheque books, deposition slips etc. of bank account, PAN Card and ITR, operation of bank account searched the premises of the assessee and connected parties to the group entity including the person who holds the power of attorney but has not covered the premises of Shri Ram Singh Meena. Not only that based on the provision of section 153A/153C revenue did not deem it fit and proper to examine him and no proceeding after the search have been conducted for the reasons best known to place on record the correct facts.

12.6 Thus, even otherwise the addition was made on the completed assessment without bringing any incriminating material and thereby the addition cannot be permitted of the disclosed transaction as it was held by the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited [ 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) ] wherein it was held that ;

6. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that once upon the search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the assessment has to be done under section 153A of the Act, 1961 and the AO thereafter has the jurisdiction to pass assessment orders and to assess the 'total income' taking into to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT consideration other material, though no incriminating material is found during the search even in respect of completed/unabated assessments.

7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such various High Courts, namely, Delhi High Court, Gujarat High Court, Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court, Orissa High Court, Calcutta High Court, Rajasthan High Court and the Kerala High Court have taken the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessments in absence of any incriminating material. The lead judgment is by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), which has been subsequently followed and approved by the other High Courts, referred to hereinabove. One another lead judgment on the issue is the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra), which has been followed by the Gujarat High Court in the subsequent decisions, referred to hereinabove. Only the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Mehndipur Balaji 2022 SCC Online All 444/[2023] 147 taxmann.com 201/ [2022] 447 ITR 517 has taken a contrary view. 7.1 In the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), the Delhi High Court, while considering the very issue and on interpretation of section 153A of the Act, 1961, has summarised the legal position as under: Summary of the legal position 38. On a conspectus of section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under section 132 of the Act, notice under section 153A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words, there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e., those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." 7.2 Thereafter in the case of Saumya Construction (supra), the Gujarat High Court, while referring the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and after considering the entire scheme of block assessment under section 153A of the Act, 1961, had held that in case of completed assessment/unabated assessment, in absence of any incriminating material, no additional can be made by the AO and the AO has no jurisdiction to re-open the completed assessment. In paragraphs 15 & 16, it is held as under: "15.On a plain reading of section 153A of the Act, it is evident that the trigger point for exercise of powers thereunder is a search under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A of the Act. Once a search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the Assessing Officer to issue notice under section 153A of the Act to the person requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the' assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and assess or reassess the same. Since the assessment under section 153A of the Act is linked with search and requisition under sections 132 and 132A of the Act, it is evident that the object of the section is to bring to tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of or pursuant to the search or requisition. However, instead of the earlier regime of block assessment whereby; it was only the undisclosed income of the block period that was assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention of the Legislature clear as the same provides that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to the six to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT assessment years referred to in the sub-section pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub-section (2) of section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub- section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which had abated under the second proviso would stand revived. The proviso thereto says, that such revival shall cease to have effect if such order of annulment is set aside. Thus, any proceeding of assessment or reassessment falling within the, six assessment years prior to the search or requisition stands abated and the total income of the assessee is required to be determined under section 153A, of the Act. Similarly, sub-section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under section 153A of, the Act is annulled in appeal or any other proceeding.

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and assess or reassess the same. Section 153A of the Act reads as under: "153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139; b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made: Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years: Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132-A, as the case may be, shall abate. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or Section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: Provided that such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set aside Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that,— (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153-B and section 153-C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year."

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A, the assessment or re-assessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. As per sub-section (2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner. Therefore, the intention of the legislation seems to be that in case of search only the pending assessment/reassessment proceedings shall abate and the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' for the entire six years period/block assessment period. The intention does not seem to be to re-open the completed/unabated assessments, unless any incriminating material is found with respect to concerned assessment year falling within last six years preceding the search. Therefore, on true interpretation of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A and during the search any incriminating material is found, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would have the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed income. However, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment under section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no incriminating material is found during the search, the power of the Revenue to have the reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy.

13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra) and the decisions of the other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material.

(i) that in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A;

(ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;

(iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.

The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. Respectfully following this finding of the Apex Court and since the revenue accepted the source of the source and upon accepting the credit and thereby the investment merely based on the statement without any supporting corroborative material having nature of incriminating in nature no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee.

12.7 Thus, even though the revenue is shouting with the material lying with the assessee in the form of cheque book, slip book and records of the PAN card and other material no action against him [ Shri Ram Singh Meena ] was considered to be initiated against him not at the time of search, post search proceeding or during the searched proceeding of the assessee.

Not only that while conducting the assessment proceeding of M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited the investment made by that company with Shri Ram Singh Meena was considered as explained and the source of giving that money to him was also accepted. Thus, when all the independent transactions with that of independent entities are found genuine and recorded in the books of account of M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited and Shri Ram Singh Meena merely from the premises of the account revenue found out the records in the form of cheque book, deposit slip book copy of PAN card application or that of the nothing to do with the case of the assessee while assessing his income.

Hence when revenue has accepted all these transactions being found in order and accepted in that individual with the background of the material found were accepted by the Officer being same, whether that material so found has any effect of treating the transaction as unexplained or that of the for the direct benefit of the assessee? Obviously, no because on the one hand revenue accept the source of investment as genuine and from explained sources in the case of M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited who is the major investor and all the money flows from the regular source recorded in the books of account and the same were verified in the assessment proceeding by issuing a specific query vide notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 07.02.2021 and having accepted that source of investment with Shri Ram Singh Meena can the said investment or that of the source be considered as unexplained investment or unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee when the same is obviously made by M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited and those transaction were independently examined and accepted by Revenue by the same officer.

Therefore, we see no merits for sustaining the addition on any leg as to whether the source of source flowed from the assessee or that the source made investment or made finance to Shri Ram Singh Meena. Therefore, in the absence of any material placed on record the view advanced in the orders of the lower authority against these facts we do not find any provision under which the income which is duly recorded and reflected as explained can be income of the assessee. On this subject we would like to rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Excel Industries Limited [ 38 taxmann.com 100 (SC) ] wherein the Apex Court has given certain principles for taxing the income which we would like to reiterate herein below :

As is evident that none of the credit as alleged to have been made by the assessee to the account of Shri Ram Singh Meena and the revenue failed to answer that specific question about the source of the source of the money of the investment made by Shri Ram Singh Meena was flowed from the assessee? The answer is “No” as no material to that contention of the revenue was placed before us. In that situation there is nothing to add as income of the assessee. Be that it may under which section the law empower the ld. AO to make the addition of sum which is already recorded in the regular books of account of two separate entities. Since the assessee has neither paid the money nor acquired the assets for his own benefit even on that account the provision of section 69 on the allegation as alleged investment cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. We also observed that ld. AO has not proved that when the assessee has no role to play on the acquisition of the property merely the record found at the premises of the assessee it does not affect the assessment of income in the Infrareal Private Limited was assessed independently after search and in that proceeding revenue could not establish that the funds that flowed to Shri Ram Singh Meena is from that company was sourced from the assessee. As such the acceptance of transaction in the hands of M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited and that of the Shri Ram Singh Meena the allegation made by the revenue fails at that stage even though the revenue made the addition and ld. CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the fact and thereby the assessee is in appeal to challenge the addition of the independent credit in the account of Shri Ram Singh Meena. Revenue in both the before the ld. AO and that of the ld. CIT(A) preferred to remain silent and not made any protective or substantive addition because the source was clear in their respective hand. Having accepted the credit as source from the books of M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited to finance the money to Shri Ram Singh Meena were also accepted. If that is so what is the reason to make the addition in the hands of the assessee where the assessee has nothing to do with the two independent transactions between M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited and Shri Ram Singh Meena. Therefore, once the revenue on one hand considered the source as well as investment as explained and in another considered as unexplained income of the assessee by adopting the flip flop approach on the same money cannot be accepted. The bench noted that one side revenue accepted the fact that investment recorded and reflected in his ITR is his investment from the explained sources and having accepted and taxed that part of income in his hand, then without bringing any contrary material how the other side revenue alleged that these investment are for the benefit of the assessee and that on that aspect that it has direct benefit to the assessee or not was not established before the lower authority or that of before the present appellate proceedings.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to verify the source of the investment made by Shri Ram Singh Meen in the year under consideration, as per the chart submitted by assessee the total investment made by the assessee in the year under consideration is Rs. 16,09,07,018/-. Record reveals that for the year under consideration it was alleged to have been financed or the account of the assessee credit by the following source; accepting his ITR and considering the source of the amount being recorded in the respective books of account of Shri Ram Singh Meena and Company M/s. Om Shree Ram Infrareal P. Ltd., having accepted that what are the evidence based on upon which the addition be sustained remained unanswered.

As is evident from the record that the ld. AO issued a show cause notice on the contention to tax the income to the extent of the credit in the bank account and investment made by Shri Ram Singh Meena. In response the assessee filed the detailed reply to the ld. AO who considered the reply of the assessee but did not find acceptable because the assessee has made deposits in the bank accounts from his own as well from group companies and used Shri Ram Singh Meena and Shri Rajesh Kabra (Special Power of Attorney Holder of Shri Ram Singh Meena) as a conduit to make such transactions. While holding revenue upon the finding of DCIT (Benami Prohibition), Rajasthan, (where detailed investigation has been made in this case as submitted by revenue) and in that proceeding it was concluded as under. We have examined that contention and the finding on that observations are tabulated herein below :

Sr.no Contention of the ld. AO and that of Observation as regards the fact the DCIT DCIT (Benami that based on that fact whether to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT Prohibition), Rajasthan the addition made is sustainable or not 1. The above persons are of little Whether the person is having means. They have credit worthiness means or not. The source of the to make such huge deposits in their credit and investment made is from bank accoount the explained source or not is required to be seen and the same is not doubted. Record reveals that there is no evidence of any incriminating material of having paid any cash while purchasing the property by the assessee even though the premises were searchd. The source of the investment made in the property is duly examined and there is no finding of the lower authority that the same remained unexplained.

5. Shri Om Prakash Gupta opened and Each entry of this account were operated the bank accounts in the explained and considered so. The name of Shri Ram Singh Meena and statement relied upon were carried out transactions in these bank retracted. accounts as accepted by him in the statement taken.

9. This bank account was never used The use of the bank account by by Shri Ram Singh Meena but was Shri Ram Singh Meena by himself used by Shri Om Prakash Gupta only will not make any inference to tax for his own benefits. the assessee.

10. Shri Rajesh Kabra is a close relative Shri Rakesh Kabra was searched and confident of Shri Om Prakash no incriminating documents found Gupta Therefore, Shri Om Prakash and merely operation of that bank Gupta took a power of attorney from account by his relative has in pact Shri Ram Singh Meena in the name on the income of the assessee of Shri Rajesh Kabra and bank since there is no allegation that the account of Shri Ram Singh Meena credit and that of the debit for the was also operated and controlled by benefit of the assessee. Shn Om Prakash Gupta through Shri Rajesh Kabra.

In the light of the above discussion and considering the detailed guideline and decision in the case of our High Court in the case of Esspal International (Supra) decision of Apex Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. (Supra) and Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (Supra) we do not find any reason to tax even the higher figure of credit or that of the investment in the case of the assessee and thereby we do not concur with the view of the ld.

CIT(A) and thereby we consider ground no. 1 to Ground no. 5.1 raised by assessee in the lead case of the assessee. Ground no. 6 being consequential in nature does not require our finding. stands allowed. the different ground with that of the lead case is Ground no. 4 and 4.1 which reads as follows;

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- made by the ld. AO on account of investment in partnership firm”M/s. Om Realty” u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 4.1 That ld. CIT(A) has further erred in brushing aside the submission made by the assessee that addition on this account was also made in the hands of “M/s. Om Realty “ and rather observing that issue of source in the hands of assessee is separate and distinct. Appellant prays that confirming of additions in the hands of assessee has resulted into double taxation of same income in the hands of assessee as well as “M/s. Om Realty” which is not in accordance with law and addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- deserved to be deleted. 14. The brief facts related to this ground as emerges from the order of the assessment is that while search proceedings on Om Agarwal Group Sawai, Madhopur, the residential premises of Shri Puneet Gupta (one of the key person of Group and Directors in M/s Om Transport Company. M/s Professional Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Partner in M/s Om Realty) situated at 41, Gulab Bag, Jawahar Nagar, Sawai Madhopur was also covered. In that search at residence of Shri Puneet Gupta various incriminating documents were found & seized as per Annexure AS, Ex-1 to 2. On perusal of page 119 of Ex-1, it has been noticed that this paper contains data in tabulated form, which pertains to the brief description of income & expenditure of the (Gupta) is one of the partner During the year 2014-15, he had made capital investment of Rs.66,60,000/- on 31.07.2014. This capital investment amounting to Rs.66,60,000/- has been recovered in the above exhibit seized by the search party from the residence of Shri Puneet Gupta. During the post search investigation proceedings, the assessee has submitted written reply. On perusal of reply and balance sheet for the F.Y. 2017-18, it has been noticed that the assessee has mentioned an amount of Rs.53,60,000/- against M/s Om Realty in the sundry debtors list. Further, the assessee has stated while post search proceedings this entry is related to capital investment in M/s Om Realty, in which he is one of the partner and the transaction mentioned against M/s Om Realty is the amount invested by him. Hence, it was clear that the total investment made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 53,60,000/- was by way of cheque. Therefore, it is clear that he had invested an amount of Rs. 53,60,000/- in M/s Om Realty during the F.Y. 2014-15. But on perusal of seized document, which was annexed at page no. 119 of Ex-1 of party No. 2 (residence of Shri Puneet Gupta), it is clearly mentioned on that the assessee Shri Om Prakash Agarwal (Gupta) had made total investment of Rs.66,60,000/- during the F.Y. 2014-15. Thus, there is a difference of Rs. 13,00,000/- Therefore, during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was specifically asked for the explanation of the source of undisclosed investment found in the seized material and how the same was offered for taxation in the return of income, vide query letter dated 10.02.2021. Since, the assessee has not furnished documentary evidences in support of investment made in the firm. Investment amounting to Rs. 13,00,000/- which was reflected in the seized material found from the residence of the Shri Puneet Gupta was treated as unexplained investment of assessee for the year under consideration and the same was added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act.

5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:-

In this ground of appeal the appellant has contended that in the assessment of M/s Om Realty addition has been made by the learned AO on account of unexplained sources of the expenses of Rs. 80,50,541 and it was contended during the assessment of this partnership firm that Rs.48,00,000 were given by the appellant which was utilised in incurring the unexplained expenses. In the present ground of appeal the appellant has contended that Rs. 13,00,000 added by the learned AO in the assessment order as unexplained investment of the appellant in the partnership firm M/s Om Realty is part of Rs. 48,00,000 which has been referred above. The appellant has contended that the sum has been already

The above contentions of the appellant have been carefully considered and it is noted that the appellant has not placed on record the relevant evidences in this regard and made self-serving statements. The appellant has not placed on record of the (i) submissions made during the assessment proceedings of M/s Om Realty. (11) the assessment order in the case of M/s Om Realty, (iii) whether the addition made therein has been accepted or not. Thus the contentions made by the appellant are non-verifiable and are rejected.

Even otherwise the addition made in the hands of the appellant is regarding the source of the funds in the hands of the appellant and whereas it appears from the submissions of the appellant in the case of M/s Om Realty it appears that the addition was done in terms of source in the hands of such partnership firms. Thus the issue of source in the hands of the appellant is separate and distinct. The appellant is required to substantiate the source in his own hands and in the absence of the same the investment is liable to be taxed and which has been taxed in the assessment order. In the appeal the appellant has not made submissions on the merits against the additions and has however only made submission regarding the claim of the set off on the ground that the same amount has already been taxed in the hands of M/s Om Realty however which has been found to be unsubstantiated self-serving statement. Thus the addition made in the assessment order is hereby confirmed and this ground of appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.”

16. Feeling dissatisfied the assessee challenged that addition and in support of the contention the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that during the course of search, certain documents were found containing details of receipts and payments of M/s Om Realty. While completing assessment in the case of M/s Om Realty, (wherein assessee is acting as partner and has made investment as stated in above para), for A.Y. 2015-16, ld.AO alleged that expenses to the tune of Rs. 80,50,541/- have been made by Om Realty M/s Om Realty, duly explaining the source of such expenses, which included sum of Rs.48,00,000/- being received from Sh. O.P. Gupta (i.e. assessee) as his unexplained investment in the firm and thereby he submitted that no separate addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee.

17. Ld. DR is heard who relied upon the orders of the lower authority and submitted that since there was failure on the part of the assessee to substantiate the claim and without that fact the claim of the assessee was right.

18. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The apple of the discord in the ground no. 4 & 4.1 taken by the assessee in this appeal is that there was difference in the investment made by the assessee in the material found during the search and thereby the investment shown in the books of account of the assessee and thereby the difference amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he has sustained the addition by observing that the since the assessee has the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that while conducting the assessment proceeding of the firm where the assessee is partner M/s Om Realty for A.Y. 2015-16, ld.AO alleged that expenses to the tune of Rs. 80,50,541/- have been made by Om Realty out of unexplained sources. The contention so raised by the assessee lacks without any supporting evidence and whether there in the case of M/s. Om Realty the contention taken by the assessee were not supported and therefore, we see no infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and thereby the addition is sustained and ground no. 4 & 4.1 raised by the assessee are dismissed. the different ground with that of the lead case is Ground no. 1 which reads as follows;

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 13,30,000/- made by the ld. AO on account of cash found during the search rather merely allowing telescoping set off of the same towards additional income offered by assessee, arbitrary. Appellant prays that cash found during search was out cash balances in the books of accounts of assessee, his family members and business concerns as well as part of savings of family members, pin money etc. therefore, cash so found is fully explained and addition made on this account deserves to be deleted. 20. The brief facts related to this ground emerges from the order of the assessment is that while search & seizure operation carried out on the assessee group M/s Om Agarwal, Sawai Madhopur on 16.01.2019.

Nagar Sawai Madhopur was also covered under search action. During the search proceedings following cash was found from the premises for which details are as under; In the search proceedings the statement of Shri Rachit Agarwal, son of Shri Om Prakash Agarwal were recorded for the explanation for the source of the above cash of Rs 13,30,360/ In reply to Q. No. 15, the assessee (Rachit Agarwal) has stated that some part of cash found from the residence as well as lockers is part of individual cash balances of family members & also it is part of agricultural income. However, he did not produce any documentary evidence at the time of search proceedings. Out terms of the Annexure CS dated 16.01.2019. Assessee submitted that as on date of search there was sufficient cash balance in the hand of assessee, his family members and his group concerns. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was specifically asked for the explanation of the cash found during the course of assessment proceedings vide query letter dated 10.02.2021. In the assessment proceeding the assessee submitted the reply which reads as under :

"During the course of search total cash of Rs. 1,04,90,560/- was found out of which Rs 17,00,000/- was seized by the department and balance Rs. 87.90,560 was released being the cash balance available with business concern and saving of the family members. The immediate source of cash is the cash balance available in the books of the assessee and his family members coupled up with the saving and pin money of household ladies. Thus the cash so found is covered and therefore no further adverse inference is required to be drawn with reference to the cash found.

Having considered the above reply ld. AO noted that the the submission of the assessee is unacceptable for the following reasons

• The assessee has not furnished documentary evidences for cash savings • The assessee has not reconciled the cash balance available with the return of income • The benefit for the cash balance as available in the books of the assessee's family members and business concern has already allowed to the assessee • The cash of Rs. 13,30,000/- is over and above the cash balances available in the cash book of the assessee group to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT • During the course of post search proceedings the assessee has furnished that the cash balance includes agriculture income, however the assessee has not furnished documentary evidences for the same. Therefore, the submission of the assessee that the cash found during the course of search is part of saving of family members and part of agriculture income is not acceptable in the absence of the documentary evidences of the same and thereby cash of Rs. 13,30,360/- which was found at the premises of Shri Om Prakash Agarwal is being treated as unexplained money of Shri Om Prakash Agarwal and the same is being added to the total income of Shri Om Prakash Agarwal u/s 69A of the Act.

21. The assessee challenged that finding of the ld. AO before ld. CIT(A) who dismissed this ground of appeal by observing as under :

4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- The ld. AO has noted that the total cash from the assessee’s residence as well as bank locker was found amounting to Rs. 13,30,360/- at the time of search. The cash was found at three namely, the residence of the appellant, joint bank account locker of the appellant with Smt. Sneh Lata Agarwal and joint bank account locker of Smt. Sneh Lata Agarwal and Shri Rachit Agarwal During the course of search proceedings the statement of Shri Rachit Agarwal, son of Shri Om Prakash Agarwal were recorded for the explanation for the source of the above cash of Rs. 13,30,360/-In reply to Q. No. 15, the assesse (Rachit Agarwal) has stated that some part of cash found from the residence as well as lockers is part of individual cash balances of family members & also it is part of agricultural income. However, he did not produce any documentary evidences at the time of search proceedings. The Id. AO noted that the assesse has not furnished documentary evidences for cash savings, the assesse has not reconciled the cash balance available with the to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT return of income, the benefit for the cash balance as available in the books of the assessee's family members and business concern has already allowed to the assessee, the cash of Rs. 13.30,000/- is over and above the cash balances available in the cash book of the assessee group. During the course of post search proceedings the assessee has furnished that the cash balance includes agriculture income, however the assessee has not furnished documentary evidences for the same In this ground of appeal the appellant has contended that the cash is from the past savings and also relied upon the income shown in the income tax returns by the three family members. The appellant has also contended that belongs to a reputed Agrawal family, where cash is received by ladies as gift also on various family functions and festivals, thus savings to the tune of Rs. 13,30,360/- in the form of cash, as found is fully explained and it is requested that addition made by Id.AO deserves to be deleted There is merit in this contention of the appellant as it cannot be expected that there was no cash being maintained at all by the appellant and his family members. It is a normal practice that some amount out of the savings or the income is maintained as cash in hand in the households. However what could be the realistic amount of such household cash balance in the case of the appellant and his family members is to be arrived at as per the various circumstantial factors. Further the appellant has also contended that the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding has disclosed additional income worth Rs. 36.60,103/- on account of Undisclosed receipts from M/s Trinetra Ganesh Smart Bazar Developers Pvt. Ltd and for this reason also, it can be safely inferred that cash found during search was out of additional income so disclosed. From the perusal of the assessment order it is seen that the appellant disclose and additional income of Rs 36,60,103 on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action however such income was not disclosed in the income tax return and was offered to tax only during the assessment proceedings and the addition in this regard has been made by the learned AO. From the perusal of the order it is seen that the appellant has not failed appeal on this addition. • CIT vs. Tyaryamal Balchand [1987]

32. Taxman

64. (Rajasthan)/[1987] 165 ITR 453 (Rajasthan)/[1987]

62. CTR 216 (Rajasthan) [28-04-1986] X x x x • CIT vs. K.S.M Guruswamy Nadar & Sons [1984]

19. Taxman 533 (Madras)/[1984] 149 ITR 127 (Madras) [20-06-1983] X x x x • S. Kuppuswami Mudaliar v. CIT [1964]

51. ITR 757 (Madras)[10-12-1962] X x x x • CIT vs. Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel [2014] 45 taxmann.com 441 (Gujarat)

In view of the above discussion into the facts of the case and in view of the ratio of the judgements the appellant is entitled to the set off or the telescoping of the additional income detected and accepted with respect to the application or investment in the cash found during the course of search and seizure action. Accordingly, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made in the assessment order in this regard it is hereby directed to be deleted and this ground of appeal is hereby allowed.

22. The bench noted that the ld. CIT(A) has already considered all the aspect of the matter and has already allowed the setoff of the additional income disclosed by the assessee and thereby we do not find any infirmity in the detailed finding of the ld. CIT(A) and thereby the ground no 1 raised by the assessee in this appeal stands dismissed.

23. The bench noted that facts of the case and the grounds of appeal

in to 401/JP/2025 are similar to the facts of the case in as tabulated herein below and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. Thus, we notice that the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal No. 395/JP/2025 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds of that of the grounds raised in the appeal of the assessee as tabulated herein below. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts, various grounds, arguments raised by both that the decision taken by us in for the Assessment Year 2013-14 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Om Prakash to 401/JP/2025 for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2019-20 as tabulated herein below; S no. Appeal Number A. Y. Remarks 1 396/JPR/2025 2014

15. Ground no. 1 to 5.1 raised in this appeal are similar to the grounds of appeal as raised in vide ground no. 1 to 5.1 and that finding shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal. Ground no. 1 to 5.1 too. Ground no 6 is consequential. 2 397/JPR/2025 2015

16. Ground no. 1 to 3.2 raised in this appeal are similar to the grounds of appeal as raised in ITA no. 395/JP/2025 vide ground no. 1 to 5.1 and that finding shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal Ground no. 1 to 3.2 too. Ground no. 4 to 4.1 dismissed as per the separate finding given herein above. Ground no 6 is consequential. 3 398/JPR/2025 2016

17. Ground no. 1 to 5.1 raised in this appeal are similar to the grounds of appeal as raised in vide ground no. 1 to 5.1 and that finding shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal. Ground to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT no. 1 to 5.1 too. Ground no 6 is consequential. 4 399/JPR/2025 2017

18. Ground no. 1 to 3.2 raised in this appeal are similar to the grounds of appeal as raised in ITA no. 395/JP/2025 vide ground no. 1 to 5.1 and that finding shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal. Ground no. 1 to 3.2 too. Ground no 4 is consequential. 5 400/JPR/2025 2018

19. Ground no. 1 to 3.2 raised in this appeal are similar to the grounds of appeal as raised in vide ground no. 1 to 5.1 and that finding shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal. Ground no. 1 to 3.2 too. Ground no 4 is consequential. 6 401/JPR/2025 2019

20. Ground no. 2 to 4.2 raised in this appeal are similar to the grounds of appeal as raised in vide ground no. 1 to 5.1 and that finding shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal. Ground no. 1 we have dismissed as per the finding given herein above. Ground no 5 is consequential.

In terms of these observations the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as under :

S no. Appeal Number Assessment Year Results 1 395/JPR/2025 2013-14 Allowed to 401/JP/2025 Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT 2 396/JPR/2025 2014-15 Allowed 3 397/JPR/2025 2015-16 Partly Allowed 4 398/JPR/2025 2016-17 Allowed 5 399/JPR/2025 2017-18 Allowed 6 400/JPR/2025 2018-19 Allowed 7 401/JPR/2025 2019-20 Partly Allowed

Order pronounced in the open court on 18/09/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 18/09/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Om Prakash Gupta, Sawaimadhopur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 395 to 401/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत