M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

Kumar Jain which is perused. On perusal of the same, the total Income declared by Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar and Shri Vijay Kumar Jain is as under: Name of person AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 Shri Ram Gurjar Rs. 75,70,830/- 13,47,930/- 8,66,890/- Shri Vijay Kumar Jain Rs. 1,07,44,920/- Rs. 37,34,770/- Rs. 73,34,040/-

The Income Tax Return of said Partner has been examined by the Ld. A.O. It emerges that the Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar is a person of moderate means, and lacks the wherewithal to advance sums / contribute partnership capital of Rs. 15,74,99,500/-. Unsubstantiated Journal Entries: The Appellant's claim that the amounts were credible documentary evidence. The ledger extracts and bank statements submitted were incomplete and failed to establish a clear audit trail linking the alleged transactions to legitimate sources of income. Lack of Independent Verification: The Appellant did not furnish any confirmations from the alleged creditors or financial institutions supporting the claimed transactions. No independent third-party evidence was provided to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions, making the entire claim unreliable. Applicability of Section 68: Judicial precedents relied upon by the Appellant were found to be inapplicable to the present case. The Appellant misinterpreted case laws to argue that section 68 does not apply to journal entries. In this case, the appellant has failed to establish the Capacity Genuineness-Creditworthiness of the Sources (Incl. partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar) to even introduce the sums are unsecured loans at the first instance, which has been claimed to be transferred to the capital account. The genuineness of the transaction (Both the so-called unsecured loan, as well as the present claimed conversion of loan into capital contribution) have not been established apart from self-certification. As per settled legal principles, when an assesseefails to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of credits appearing in their books, section 68 is squarely applicable. Since the Appellant failed to establish these three essential conditions, the invocation of section 68 was fully justified. Mere Book Entries Do Not Prove Genuineness: The claim that funds were transferred through book adjustments does not exempt the Appellant from proving the source of those funds. Courts have consistently held that mere accounting entries cannot replace genuine financial transactions. The Appellant's failure to prove the actual source of the capital introduction or, the so-called subsisting loan made the entire claim untenable. There is to interest payment via Banking channel by the Appellant partnership firm to said Sh. Gurjar on the so-called claimed liability. Contradictions in Submissions: The explanations provided by the Appellant were inconsistent and contradictory. Initially, the Appellant claimed that the capital introduction was sourced from pre-existing balances, but later attempted to justify it through unrelated transactions. The lack of a clear, consistent explanation further undermined the credibility of the Appellant's claim. Hence, the arguments and vacillating contentions of the appellant are rejected being unsupported, and just a superficial response. Decision on Grounds of Appeal:

In light of the above findings, it is evident that the Appellant failed to substantiate the source and genuineness of the capital introduced. In this case, the appellant has failed to establish the Capacity - Genuineness-Creditworthiness of the Sources (Incl. Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar) to even introduce the sums are unsecured loans at the first instance, which has been claimed to be transferred to the capital account. The Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 68 of the Income Tax Act, as the Appellant could not discharge its burden of proof. The rejection of explanations provided by the Appellant has been based on sound reasoning and legal precedents. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant are rejected, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld.

10. Directions under section 150 for re-assessment of income of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar on Protective Basis: The Assessing Officer is directed under section 150, sub-section (2) to take the matter into account and undertake a protective assessment in the name of the Partner. The Assessing Officer is directed to reopen the case of the said Partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar, and undertake the assessment on a protective basis.

11. DECISION: 11.1 The ground of appeal fails. The additions are sustained and assessment is confirmed. 11.2 The Assessing Officer is directed u/s 150 to examine and proceed in matter of the partner, Sh. Ram Chandra Gurjar for “protective (re) assessment”. Appeal dismissed.”

5. Feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the second appeal before this tribunal raising therein various grounds as reproduced herein above in para 2. Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following written submission :-

“BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE � The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in real estate business. Return of income for assessment year 2018-19 was filed on 31/08/2018 declaring NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under E-assessment Scheme, 2019. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 22/09/2019. The assessment stands completed u/s 143(3)/144B on 20/02/2021, determining total income of Rs. 16,12,90,311/- , inter-alia, by making the following additions :- 1 Addition u/s 68 by treating the credit balance with M/s Rs.92,13,534 Shrey Associates as unexplained cash credit. 2 Addition u/s 68 by treating the credit/capital Rs.15,74,99,500 contribution by Ram Chandra Gurjar, partner as unexplained.

3. Aggrieved with the order of the Learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The individual grounds of appeal

are discussed as follows :- Ground No.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order dated 06/03/2025 as the same is not in accordance with law. & Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, which action is unlawful, illegal and unjust. & Ground No.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submissions made before him on the ground that the same amounted as fresh evidences and the same were hit by rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

4. The grounds No. 1 to 3 are taken together for discussion. It is submitted that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is against the established norms of law. It is submitted that in the case of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assesse had information containing 42 pages in pdf files. However, the Learned Assessing Officer, in the assessment order, mentioned that most of the pages in these files were blank and, as such, the submissions of the assessee stood disregarded and the assessment was completed making uncalled for additions. Now before the Learned CIT(A), the assessee furnished all those very evidences, which were submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer and which were rejected by him being blank, the Learned CIT(A), in his turn, has rejected these evidences on the ground that these were fresh evidences without backed up application u/s 46A. In this way, the assessee has suffered in the hands both of the Learned Assessing Officer as well as the Learned CIT(A) on account of unfortunate circumstances. 4.1 It is submitted that before rejecting the evidences filed by the assessee before the Learned CIT(A) on the ground that these were fresh evidences, the Learned CIT(A) was expected to provide an opportunity for filing application under Rule 46 A. The assessee was under a bona fide belief that no fresh evidence was virtually filed before the Learned CIT(A) as the same stood filed before the Learned Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is the humble submission of the assessee that the Learned CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the grounds of appeal of the assessee and has also erred in considering the evidences filed before him as fresh. 4.2 It is submitted that Rule 46A cannot override the principles of natural justice. In this case, the evidences were filed before the Learned Assessing Officer, but the Learned AO, without giving opportunity to the assessee, observed that some of the pages in the pdf file uploaded was blank. This observation was not communicated to the assessee and additions were made without providing opportunity to the assessee. These evidences were filed by the assessee before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting these vital evidences, which touch the roots of the case, over-riding the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIt (1991) AIR 241, held that Rule

46. A cannot override the principles of nature justice. The ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of AvanGidwaniVs ACIT I.T.A..No. 5138/Mum/2015, held that " The principle "Audi alterampartem", i.e. no man should be condemned unheard is the basic canon principles of natural justice and accordingly we find merit in the contentions of the assessee that Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules cannot be over ride the principles of natural justice. Hence we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit the various additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Since the assessee was not given opportunity to contradict the findings given by the AO by not admitting the additional evidences, we are of the view that the LdCIT(A) should re-adjudicate all the issues afresh by admitting the additional evidences. " Therefore, the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and the Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to grant relief accordingly. 4.3 In the above regard, the assessee is furnishing copy of submissions made before the Learned CIT(A) on 7/2/2025 as well as copy of paper book submitted along with the submission. These are available on Paper Book Page No.20-77. Ground No.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the major fact that credit in the name of Shreya Associates of Rs. 92,13,534/- was a trading liability and not a cash credit, hence, the addition of the same could not have been confirmed.

5. Before the Learned CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that amount of Rs. 92,13,534/- was a trading liability standing in the name of M/s Shreya Associates. M/s Shreya Associates was carrying out construction work of the assessee. Total construction work was done of Rs. 3,19,31,534/-. During the year, the assessee made payment to the tune of Rs.2,27,18,000/- and balance Rs. 92,13,534/- remained outstanding. In support of this, assessee had filed copies of vouchers of Shreya Associates, confirmation of account from Shreya Associates and relevant bank account. All these are available on Paper Book Page No.1-19. However, the Learned CIT(A) did not appreciate the submissions of the assessee simply on the ground that there was no application u/s 46A. The action of the Learned CIT(A) was not in accordance with law. His order has violated the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble ITAT humbly requested to delete the addition of Rs. 92,13,534/-. 5.1 The relevant part of submissions made before the Learned CIT(A) are quoted below :- "It is submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee engaged M/s Shreya Associates, S-33-34, JDA Shopping Centre, Amrapali

Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur for constructing residential complex under the name and style "Pearl Sunrise RC" at Neemrana, Dist. Alwar (Now Behror). During the year under consideration, on account of carrying construction work, payment to the extent of Rs. 92,13,534/- was outstanding to be paid by the assessee to M/s Shreya Associates as on 31/03/2018. The same is verifiable with reference to the copy of account of M/s Shreya Associates as appearing in the books of the assessee. The perusal of the copy of account reveals that a sum of Rs. 31,60,000/- was a debit balance in this account as on 01/04/2017. This shows that Shreya Associates were associated with the assessee firm in the earlier year also. During the year under consideration, Shreya Associates carried out construction work to the tune of Rs. 3,19,31,534/-. Against this, the assessee made payment to the tune of Rs. 2,27,18,000/- and a sum of Rs. 92,13,534/- remained outstanding as on 31/03/2018. All these facts and figures are available and verifiable from the copy of account of M/s Shreya Associates. Further, in support of carrying out construction work, following bills presented by M/s Shreya Associates were also furnished before the Learned Assessing Officer. The details are as under :- S.No Bill No & Date raised by Amount (Rs) Date on which Shreya Associates accounted for in the books of account 1 22 to 27 dt. 59,03,831 17/4/2017 3/4/2017

2 28 7,30,256 17/4/2017 Dt 3/4/2017 3 1 to 4 5,26,567 17/4/2017 3/4/2017 4 1530, 986, 791, 996 3,98,527 17/4/2017 Dt. 3/4/2017 5 23 to 28 29,71,148 27/6/2017 Dt. 1/6/2017 6 29 45,11,889 27/6/2017 Dt.1/6/2017 7 23 to 28 15,75,900 27/6/2017 1/6/2017 8 Running Bill No. 2 10,18,915 27/6/2017 Dt. 1/6/2017 9 Running Bill No. 2 10,91,353 27/6/2017 Dt. 1/6/2017 10 Running Bill No. 3 3,79,779 30/06/2017 Dt. 30/06/2017 11 Bill No. 36 dt.5/12/2017 36,40,194 19/12/23017 12 Bill No.37 dt. 5/12/2017 33,92,165 19/12/2017 13 Bill No. 38 dt. 5/12/2017 51,73,145 19/12/2017 14 Bill No. 39 dt. 5/12/2017 6,15,211 19/12/2017 15 Bill No.40 dt. 5/12/2017 2,42,542 19/12/2017

It is submitted that these bills are conclusive documentary evidences of work done by M/s Shreya Associates. The assessee has made payment to the extent of Rs. 2,27,18,000/- through banking channel. Against the aforesaid bills, sum of Rs. 92,13,534/- remained outstanding as on 31/03/2018. Copies of the aforesaid bills, copy of account of M/s Shreya Associates, copy of confirmation of Shreya Associates have been furnished on Paper Book Page No.1-19 already submitted along with forwarding letter dated 11/12/2023. A copy of this letter is available on the additional Paper Book Page No. 01-15 being submitted with this submission. The position being so, the amount of Rs.92,13,534/- was a trading liability which stands duly verified with reference to the aforesaid bills and copy of account of Shreya Associates, having PAN AANFS4884M. In view of this, the credit of amount Rs. 92,13,534/- in the name of Shreya Associates is fully explained. The Learned Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the same as unexplained under section 68. All the aforesaid papers and documents stood submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer under letter dated 07/12/2020 and 15/2/2021. Copies of these letters are available on the additional Paper Book Page No. 16-18being submitted with this submission. It is further submitted that in the assessment order, the Learned Assessing Officer has mentioned regarding the reply filed by the assessee, but has observed that the PDF file of 42 pages was blank. In this regard, it is suffice to say that if the position was so, the Learned Assessing Officer was required to ask the assessee to resubmit the reply, but this was not done. The assessee stood rest assured that he had made full compliance and he could not imagine that PDF file uploaded by him was blank. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the trading liability of Rs. 92,13,534/- is fully explained. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. It is further submitted that a trading liability cannot be treated unexplained u/s 68 of the IT Act more so when the purchases/work done have not been doubted. In this case, the Learned Assessing Officer has not observed adversely anything about the payments made by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 2,27,18,000/- to Shreya Associates for the construction work done by them. Therefore, the construction work done by Shreya Associates stands established as genuine. In view of this, the outstanding payment appearing as credit in the books of the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained by any stretch of imagination. The following decisions are quoted in support, which have been mentioned in detail in the earlier submission made before the Learned CIT(A) on 11/12/2013 :- (1) Manoj Agarwal Vs. DCIT (2009) 113 ITD 377 (Delhi) (2) CIT Vs. RituAnurag Agarwal (2009)(7) TMI 1247 (Delhi) (3) CIT Vs. Pancham Das Jain (2006) 156 Taxman 507 (Allahabad) (4) CIT Vs. Vardhman Overseas Ltd(2011) 16 taxmann.com 350".

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Hon'ble Tribunal is humbly requested to delete the addition made u/s 68 in respect of the trading liability. Ground No.5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,74,99,500/- u/s 68 whereas the amount is capital introduced by partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar, by way of transfer from Shri Ramchandra Milk Diary Pvt. Ltd etc.

6. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted details and sources of capital introduced by the partner Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar in the firm, which amounted to Rs. 15,74,99,500/-. In support of the source of capital, the assessee also submitted complete ledger extracts, confirmation and relevant bank accounts. All these documents were also submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, but the Learned Assessing Officer failed to consider the same on the ground that some pages of the the pdf file submitted by the assessee was blank. Now before the Learned CIT(A), all the documents submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer were submitted and the assessee, in bona fide trust, did not consider these documents as fresh evidences and so did not file application u/s 46A for admission of these evidences before the Learned CIT(A). But the Learned CIT(A) has treated all the documents filed before him as fresh evidence and has not considered the same holding that same were hit by Rule 46A. It is the submission of the assessee that before rejecting the submissions of the assessee, in the interest of equity and justice, it was incumbent upon the Learned CIT(A) to have given at least one opportunity for filing a formal application under Rule 46A, but this was not done and the submissions of the assessee were rejected. 6.1 It is relevant to submit that it is not the case of the Learned CIT(A) that the evidences and documents submitted by the assessee are not relevant or do not explain the source of capital introduced by the partner. The action of the Learned CIT(A) is totally misplaced with respect to non-filing of application under Rule 46A, otherwise the entire capital of Rs. 15,74,99,500/- introduced by the partner Shri Ram Chandra Gujaris fully explained and the addition deserves to be deleted. The relevant part of submissions made before the Learned CIT(A) is reproduced below, the Hon'ble ITAT is humbly requested to peruse the same sympathetically and delete the addition. The relevant part of submissions made before the Learned CIT(A) "It is further submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer has also made addition of Rs. 15,74,99,500/- with respect to capital in the capital account of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gujar. The addition has been made by the Learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the reply and documents submitted by the assessee as mentioned in para 6.3 of the assessment order. During the year under consideration, the capital account of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gujar was credited with the following amounts :- S.No Amount (Rs) Date of credit in the capital account 1 15,13,50,000 01/04/2017 2 13,30,000 01/04/2017 3 4,00,000 05/04/2017 3,00,000 18/04/2017 1,50,000 25/04/2017 5,90,000 02/05/2017 Total 14,40,000

4 4,65,000 02/06/2017 7,90,000 03/07/2017 2,50,000 15/07/2017 2,50,000 08/08/2017 3,00,000 14/08/2017 2,00,000 21/08/2017 5,00,000 21/08/2017 6,00,000 30/08/2017 24,500 10/12/2017 Total 33,79,500 Grand Total Rs.15,74,99,500

(1) Rs. 15,13,50,000/- credited on 01/04/2017

It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings that Shri Ram Chandra Gujar was a creditor in the books of accounts of the assessee under the head "sundry creditors". A sum of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- was payable by the firm to Shri Ram Chandra Gujar. In this regard, a copy of Balance sheet as on Balance sheet as on 31/3/2017 of Stanford Developers is furnished and is available on additional Paper Book Page No. 19-22.It was this amount which was transferred by way of journal entry as on 01/04/2017. In this regard, copy of relevant account of Ram Chandra Gujar in the books of Stanford Developers as creditor is available on additional Paper Book Page No.23. In this account, there is opening balance of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- as on 01/04/2017 payable to Shri Ram Chandra Gujar. This account has been debited on 01/04/2017 by way of journal entry and the capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar has been credited of the same amount of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- on 01/04/2017. A copy of capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar is available on Paper Book Page No.24-25. Thus, the creditor account of partner has been closed and the amount has been transferred to capital account of the partner. There is no fresh induction of funds. Hence, the Learned Assessing Officer was not unjustified in treating the amount as unexplained. The addition deserves to be deleted. It is further submitted that in respect of journal entries, provisions of Sec. 68 are not applicable because no real amount comes into the books. The amount was already lying in the books of the firm. There was no fresh introduction of capital. It was shifting of funds from one account to another account by way of journal entries. The amount was transferred from creditor account to capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar, partner. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (1) H.H. Rama Varma Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 308 (Supreme Court) Held that the phrase "any sum" employed in Sec. 68 of the Act cannot be extended to include any book entry, notional adjustment, payment in kind etc. (2) CIT Vs. P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Sec. 68 observed that (a) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the tax payer (b) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year. It is further submitted that the credits transferred to the account of partners stood as opening balance in the books of the firm. In other words, these were brought forward balances and the money existed in the earlier years in the books of the firm. It is settled position of law that brought forward balances cannot be subjected to tax u/s 68 in subsequent years. The following decisions are quoted in support :- (1) Kohinoor EnterpsiesVs. CIT 410 ITR 153 (2) ACIT Vs. Sun and Sun Inframetric P. Ltd (2024) 460 ITR 258 (Chattisgarh HC) (3) CIT Vs. ParmeshwarBohra (2008) 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan HC) 2. Rs. 13,30,000 credited on 01/04/2017 It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings that Shri Ram Chandra Milk Diary Pvt. Ltd was a creditor in the books of accounts of the assessee firm under the head "sundry creditors". A sum of Rs. 13,30,000/- was payable by the firm to Ram Chandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. In this regard, a copy of Balance sheet as on 31/3/2017 of Stanford Developers is furnished and is available on Paper Book Page No.19-22 cited above. It was this amount which was transferred by way of journal entry as on 01/04/2017. In this regard, copy of relevant account of Ram Chandra Milk Diary Pvt. Ltd in the books of Stanford Developers as creditor is available on Paper Book Page No.26. In this account, there is opening balance of Rs. 13,30,000/- as on 01/04/2017 payable to Shri Ram Chandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. This account has been debited on 01/04/2017 by way of journal entry and the capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar has been credited of the same amount of Rs. 13,30,000/- on 01/04/2017. A copy of this account is available on Paper Book Page No. 24-25 cited above. Thus, the creditor account of Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd to the extent of Rs. 13,30,000/- has been debited and the amount has been transferred to capital account of the partner. There is no fresh induction of funds. Hence, the Learned Assessing Officer was not unjustified in treating the amount as unexplained. The addition deserves to be deleted. It is further submitted that in respect of journal entries, provisions of Sec. 68 are not applicable because no real amount comes into the books. The amount was already lying in the books of the firm. There was no fresh introduction of capital. It was shifting of funds from one account to another account by way of journal entries. The amount was transferred from Ramchandra Milk Diary P Ltd (creditor account) to capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar, partner. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (1) H.H. Rama Varma Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 308 (Supreme Court) Held that the phrase "any sum" employed in Sec. 68 of the Act cannot be extended to include any book entry, notional adjustment, payment in kind etc. (2) CIT Vs. P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Sec. 68 observed that (a) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the tax payer (b) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year. It is further submitted that the credits transferred to the account of partners stood as opening balance in the books of the firm. In other words, these were brought forward balances and the money existed in the earlier years in the books of the firm. It is settled position of law that brought forward balances cannot be subjected to tax u/s 68 in subsequent years. The following decisions are quoted in support :-

(i) Kohinoor EnterpsiesVs. CIT 410 ITR 153 (ii) ACIT Vs. Sun and Sun Inframetric P. Ltd (2024) 460 ITR 258 (Chattisgarh HC) (iii) CIT Vs. ParmeshwarBohra (2008) 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan HC) (3) Rs. 14,40,000/- credited in the capital account of partner 4,00,000 05/04/2017 3,00,000 18/04/2017 1,50,000 25/04/2017 5,90,000 02/05/2017 Total 14,40,000

It is submitted that the capital account of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gujar has been credited by an amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- on various dates as mentioned above. In this regard, copy of capital account of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gujar is available on Paper Book Page No.24-25 cited above. It is submitted that Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd transferred the aforesaid amounts on aforesaid dates in the account of the firm M/s Stanford Developers. The amount was deposited in the bank account of the firm. The amount was deposited by Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd on behalf of and for partner, Shri RamchandraGujar. Accordingly, the firm has credited the partners account by aforesaid amounts on aforesaid dates. Copy of the partners account is available on Paper Book Page No. cited above. The copy of account of M/s Stanford Developers in the books of Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd is available on Paper Book Page No. 27.Copy of bank account of the firm in Bank of Baroda is available onPaper Book Page No.28-41reflecting the receipt of amount on aforesaid dates from Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the source of amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- is Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. In support of identity of M/s Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd and genuineness of transaction, copy of ITR filed by Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd for the A.Y. 2018-19 is available on Paper Book Page No.42-47. In view of the aforesaid facts, the introduction of capital to the extent of Rs. 14,40,000/- in the account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar, partner, is fully explained. The transactions are through banking channels. The Learned Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the same as unexplained. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. (4) Rs. 33,79,500/- credited in the capital account of partner

4,65,000 02/06/2017 7,90,000 03/07/2017 2,50,000 15/07/2017 2,50,000 08/08/2017 3,00,000 14/08/2017 2,00,000 21/08/2017 5,00,000 21/08/2017 6,00,000 30/08/2017 24,500 10/12/2017 Total 33,79,500 The source of deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 33,79,500/- in capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar, partner is bank account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar. Copy of bank account with Bank of Baroda is available on Paper Book Page No.48-56.. In the bank account, the amount has come from Ramchandra Milk Diary Private Limited. Copy of bank account of Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd is available on Paper Book Page No.27-167 submitted along with original submission dated 11/12/2023. As already submitted, Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd is assessed to tax at PAN AAGCR9560H and copy of return for A.Y. 2018-19 is available on paper book page number cited supra. In view of the aforesaid facts, the introduction of capital to the extent of Rs. 33,79,500/- in the account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar, partner, is fully explained. The transactions are through banking channels. The Learned Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the same as unexplained. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (1) Aravali Trading Co Vs. ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Rajasthan HC) (2) KanhaiyalalJangidVs. CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Rajasthan HC) (3) CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 101 DTR 377 (Rajasthan HC) In the aforesaid cases, it has been held that where the transactions are through banking channels and identity of the creditors has been established and the creditor is assessed to tax, in such cases, the transactions stood explained and addition u/s 68 was not sustainable. Therefore, the additions made in the case of the assessee deserve to be deleted." 6.2 In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Hon'ble Tribunal is humbly requested to delete the addition made u/s 68 in respect of the trading liability. Ground No.6 (amended) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) had erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in computing tax with reference to Sec. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961, which are not applicable.

8. In the above regard, it is submitted that in the first instance, the Learned CIT(A) has not appreciated the submission furnished by the assessee along with supporting documents, such as, copy of confirmations, copy of ledger accounts and bank account on the ground that these were fresh evidences not supported by application under Rule 46A. As already submitted, the assessee had submitted all these documents before the Learned Assessing Officer, but while passing the assessment order, the Learned Assessing Officer observed that some of the pdf file uploaded by the assessee was blank. The Learned Assessing Officer did not bring this fact to the notice of the assessee before completion of assessment. Otherwise, the assessee would have uploaded the documents for the second time. In these circumstances and background, the assessee was under bonafide belief that the documents submitted before the Learned CIT(A) were not fresh evidence and, hence, no application under Rule 46 was made. The Learned CIT(A) acted against the principles of natural justice by not providing any opportunity to the assessee for furnishing application under Rule 46A. Rather on the other hand, the Learned CIT(A) has acted prejudiciously in giving directions for taking action in the hands of partner on protective basis. The Learned CIT(A) should have first substantively decided the matter before him after appreciating the documentary evidences furnished before him instead of rejecting the same on technical ground treating those as fresh evidences. In the absence of this, there was no justification for issuing directions for taking action in the hands of partner. 8.1 The Hon'ble ITAT is humbly requested firstly to appreciate the documents submitted explaining the capital introduced by the partner and delete the additions. Secondly, the Hon'ble ITAT is humbly requested to undo the directions issued by the Learned CIT(A). Ground No.8 The assessee pleads and craves and reserves his right for amending/adding any ground of appeal.

The Hon'bleITAT is humbly requested to consider the grounds, including amended grounds, submissions made by the assessee and case laws cited and decide the appeal in favour of the assessee and oblige.”

6. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a prayer for admitting the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which reads as follows :-

“We humbly pray as under: -

1. 1. It is submitted that in the case of the assessee, the Learned Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A)&143(3B) on 20/02/2021 determining total income of Rs.16,12,90,311/- as against returned income of (-) Rs.54,22,723/-.

2. During the course of assessment proceedings before the Learned Assessing Officer, the assessee uploaded 10 PDF files, which consisted copy of bank statements, confirmation, ledger account of Ramchandra Gujar, partner and Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. Papers were also submitted relating to Shreya Associates and its confirmation. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer failed to consider these and has observed in the assessment order at para 5.3. as under :- "5.3 In this regard, the assessee, vide show-cause notice dated 12/02/2021, was provided draft assessment order proposing modification in the income declared in ITR. In response to the same, assessee submitted reply on 15/02/2021. On perusal of submission made by the assessee, it is noticed that assessee has uploaded in all 10 PDF files. Out of such 10 pdf files, two files were named as "10051764739 2 confirShreynatanivinay A.Y1819 & 10051764739 3 VijayjiCapitalsourcesupportAY 1819". Both the PDF files containing 42 pages each and most of the pages were blank. Those pages where information is available is perused and it is noticed that the information on such pages pertaining to confirmation of balance accounts by different parties in respect of transactions carried out by them with Vijay Jain (PAN ADHPJ0798G)." It is submitted that before passing the assessment order, the Learned Assessing Officer was required to intimate the assessee that 42 pages were blank and further the papers uploaded did not relate. This was not done. Thus, the assessee remained under bona fide belief that the information submitted by him made full compliance of the requirements of the Learned Assessing Officer. However, only on receipt of assessment order, it transpired that PDF files were blank. In appeal before the Learned

CIT(A), all these papers were submitted, but the Learned CIT(A), treating them as fresh evidence, did not consider the same, observing that the same were hit by Rule 46A. The Learned CIT(A) did not provide any opportunity before rejecting the evidences furnished before him. The assessee did not make any application under Rule 46 A as all these evidences stood furnished before the Learned Assessing Officer. In the above facts and circumstances, as a matter of abundant caution, the assessee is moving this application that the evidences being furnished before the Hon'ble ITAT may kindly be admitted and considered sympathetically. The evidences being furnished are copies of third party accounts and, as such, the same cannot be alleged to be manipulated. Further, these evidences are vital for deciding the appeal of the assessee. The details of additional evidences are as per Paper Book submitted on 09/12/2023 and Additional Paper Book submitted on 1/1/2025 before the Learned CIT(A). Copies of the same are available on Paper Book being submitted along with submissions. It is submitted that the evidences being placed before the Hon'ble Tribunal are of vital nature for deciding the appeal of the assessee. It is submitted that these additional evidences are mostly copies of accounts and confirmations of third parties, hence, these cannot be created by the assessee. In view of this, the additional evidences may kindly be admitted and considered sympathetically. The following case laws are quoted in support :- (1) GVK Industries Ltd Vs. ACIT (2012) taxmann.com 107 (Hyderabad)

"Where documents sought to be submitted would help in arriving at right decision, same should be admitted". (2) Jasmine Commerical Ltd Vs. CIT(2011) 200 Taxmann 388 (Calcutta) Under Rules 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, Tribunal has discretion to admit additional evidence in interest of justice once Tribunal affirms opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. (3) CIT Vs. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd (239 CTR 263 (Delhi) Where the Tribunal found that CIT(A) had wrongly treated papers filed by assessee as new evidence, said finding was finding of fact and could not be said to be perverse. (4) CIT Vs. Sikka Overseas (P) Ltd (2010 328 ITR 641(Delhi) Once it is found that party intending to lead evidence before Tribunal for first time was prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidence and that said evidence would have material bearing on issue and ends of justice demanded admission of such an evidence, Tribunal could pass an order to that effect. (5) Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 867 (Allahabad)

Under Rule 29, the powers of the Tribunal admit additional evidences are limited and the Tribunal has a discretion which, of course, must be exercised reasonably. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to kindly admit the additional/supporting evidences for proper adjudication of the matter.” 7. To support the contentions raised in the written submission the ld.

AR of the assessee has relied upon the following evidences:-

Sr. Particulars Page No. No. 1. Copy of ledger accountof M/s Shrey Associates for the period 1-19 1/4/2017 to 31/3/2018 along with copies of bills raised by Shrey Associates in respect of work carried out by them. 2. Letter/submission dated 11/12/2023 filed before the Learned 20-36 CIT(A) by earlier counsel along with index of paper book submitted.

3. Copies of letters dated 07/12/2020 and 15/2/2021 filed 37-39 before the Learned Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings 4. Copy of Balance sheet of Stanford Developers as on 40-43 31/3/2017 5. Copy of account of Shri RamchandraGujar in the books of 44 M/s Stanford Developers (1/4/2017 to 31/3/2018) 6. Copy of capital account of RamchandraGujar in the books of 45-46 the firm Stanford Developers from 1/4/2016 to 31/3/2018 7. Copy of account of Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd in the 47 books of Stanford Developers 8. Copy of account of Stanford Developers in the books of 48 Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd 9. Copy of bank statement of Stanford Developers with Bank of 49-62 Baroda for F.Y. 2017-18

Sub:- Appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in (AY 2018-19) in the case of Stanford Developers, PAN-ACHFS3932Q - reg - 2. Kindly refer to your good office letter No. 393 dated 01.07.2025, vide which a detailed reply has been sought regarding the direction issued by the Hon'ble ITAT to provide a clear reply regarding what was available in the reply vis-à-vis the details submitted as additional evidences at the second appellate stage.

The AO has observed that file:

10051764739_2_ConfirShrey Natani VinayakAY1819.pdf File: & File 10051764739_3_Vijayji Capital SourceSupportAY1819.pdf consists of 42 pages and most of the pages were blank and some pages contains details of transactions carried out by Vijay Jain with some parties.

Page wise details of each file are as under:-

It is also imperative to mention here that documents uploaded in both files are same.

In view of the above, it is evident that no details regarding Shrey Associates were submitted before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings.

The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or, if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced.

A plain reading of the above rule clearly indicates that additional evidence can be admitted only in cases where the AO has decided the matter without providing the assessee a sufficient opportunity to present its case. However, in the instant case, the AO, vide notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act dated 10.12.2020, 20.12.2020, 07.01.2021, and 22.01.2021, specifically requested the assessee to furnish a copy of the ledger extract of M/s Shrey Associates for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to comply with the said notices.

In view of the above, it is evident that adequate and repeated opportunities were provided to the assessee to submit the relevant details regarding transactions with M/s. Shrey Assoclates. The assessee's fallure to furnish the requisite Information appears to be a deliberate attempt to prevent the AO from conducting a thorough inquiry into the matter. Accordingly, the additional evidence submitted at the appellate stage is not admissible under the provisions of Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules.

Vide Ground no. 4 the assessee challenges the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of credit balance appearing in the name of Shreya Associates of Rs. 92,13,534/- which was lying as trading liability but was treated as cash credit.

10.1 The brief facts of the dispute are that for the year under consideration the assessee made purchases from 3 parties namely Shrey Associates (PAN AANFS4884M), Shri Babu Singh Sisodia, Prop of Sisodia Electric Service (PAN AYCP509570) & Vinayak Constructions (BMPP-S3400F), out of which major transaction of Rs. 2,90,86,621/- was carried out with M/s Shrey Associates (PAN:

AANFS4884M). While assessment proceeding ld. AO issued notices as per provision of section 133(6) of each of the three parties to verify the transactions. In response to the same, one party namely Shrey Associates (PAN:AANFS4884M), did not respond despite issuing notice(s)/reminders u/s. 133(6) of the Act. Thus, for this transaction no confirmation in respect of this party was provided even the bills &/or assessee in order to justify genuineness of transaction made by the assessee with the said party namely Shrey Associates (PAN AANFS4884M). Based on that fact ld. AO noted that a strong suspicion arises in respect of the Identity, Existence & genuineness of transactions made by the Assessee with Shrey Associates for which no explanation was offered. In this regard, the assessee, vide show cause notice dated 12/02/2021, assessee was provided with Draft Assessment order proposing modification in the income declared in ITR. In response to the same, assessee submitted reply on 15/02/2021. On perusal of submission made by the assessee, it was noticed that assessee has uploaded all 10 PDF files. Out of such 10 pdf files, two files were named as 10051764739_2_ConfirsreyNataniVinayakAY18-19 and 10051764739_3_VijayjiCapital Source support AY 18-19. Both the PDF files uploaded containing 42 pages each and most of the pages were blank [ as noted by the ld. AO]. Those pages where information is available were perused by ld. AO and he noticed that the information on such pages pertaining to confirmation of balance accounts by different parties in respect of transactions carried out by them with Vijay Jain (PAN: ADHPJ0798G). In the light of that fact ld. AO observed that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in respect of Identity, Existence & genuineness of transactions made by the Assessee with Shrey Associates. Therefore, the whole credit balance appearing in the books of the assessee for an amount of Rs 92,13,534/- was treated as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section 68 of the Act and thereby treated as Income of the assessee & taxed as per provision u/s 115BBE of the Act.

10.2 When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the addition by observing as under:

Findings: The facts, issues and documents uploaded by the appellant have been examined. It is held that the Learned Assessing Officer has correctly examined and assessed the Appellant’s income. The onus was on the Appellant to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions concerning Shrey Associates. However, the Appellant has failed to discharge this burden. The Ld. A.O. has categorically notes that despite multiple opportunities, the Appellant did not submit adequate documentation such as confirmation from Shrey Associates, relevant bank statements, or purchase vouchers. The failure of Shrey Associates to respond to notices issued under sub-section 133(6) further draws adverse inference Page 14 of 22 ACHFS3932Q- STANFORD DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2018-19 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074122069(1) regarding its genuineness. Additionally, the PAN of Vinayak Constructions, another entity involved in the transactions, was found to be invalid, further strengthening the case against the Appellant. The mere existence of an entry in the books of accounts of the Appellant itself does not justify the genuineness of a credit balance unless substantiated with proper evidence. Such entries are self-generated documentation. The claim that payments worth Rs. 2,27,18,000/- were made to Shrey Associates does not, in itself, validate the genuineness of the outstanding balance. The absence of substantial evidence before the Assessing Officer, such as confirmation from Shrey Associates, proper invoices, or bank transactions substantiating the balance, undermines the credibility of the Appellant’s claim. Subsequent evidences before the CIT(A) are hit by provisions of Rule 46A and lack admissibility. Furthermore, reliance on judicial precedents by the Appellant does not support its case, as the basic requirement of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the claimed transaction remains unfulfilled. It is trite law that the failure to provide sufficient evidence justifies the invocation of Section 68. In this case, the failure to establish the existence of Shrey Associates and the lack of response to official notices further substantiate the view that the credit balance remains unexplained. Thus, the assessment made by the Learned Assessing Officer is based on sound reasoning, considering the lack of verification, inconsistencies in submissions, and the inability of the Appellant to provide credible documentary evidence. Decision on Grounds of Appeal:

Based on the facts, arguments, and findings discussed above, the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant are rejected. It is observed that the Learned Assessing Officer has applied Section 68 correctly by treating the credit balance of Rs. 92,13,534/- as unexplained credits. The Appellant’s failure to provide conclusive evidence justifying the transactions with Shrey Associates leaves no scope for reversal of the addition. This Ground of Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10.3 As is evident from the above facts that the assessee in response to show cause notice uploaded

10. PDF files containing all the details in connection with the proposed addition. The assessee contended that out of such 10. PDF file two files were named as “10051764739_2ConfirShreyNataniVinayakAY1819” & 10051764739_3 VijayjiCapital SourceSupport AY1819”. The assessee contended that when they have downloaded these files from the portal where it was uploaded all the pages are visible. This fact which was contended before us were not controverted by the revenue by placing any contrary material on record. The fact that the uploaded documents were alleged to have been blank was not informed to the assessee by the ld. AO. This itself violates the principles of natural justice. Even the matter carried before the ld. submitted all those documents as additional evidence under rule 46A.

While adjudicating the matter the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that though the assessee has submitted all the documents in connection with that addition but no opportunity were given to the assessee that the documents uploaded were blank and thereby the assessee filed the application for additional evidence which the ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the back ground as to why the same was submitted and why that contention raised by the assessee were not correct. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidence violates the principle of “Audi alteram partem” i.e. no one can be condemned unheard and thereby the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is not correct based on the facts and circumstances already on record. Thus, we hold that the evidence so submitted before the ld. AO which he did not deal and allow the assessee an opportunity of being heard. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he did not consider the evidence stating that the application for additional evidence is not maintainable as the assessee failed to support the claim. Considering that peculiar facts we are of the considered view that lis between the parties must be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard. Based on that discussion we are of the considered view that the evidence since being placed before ld. AO same cannot be considered as additional evidence, as the ld. AO did not allow the assessee to rebut the contention of the ld. AO that the same are blank evidence.

10.4 Having held so we examined that evidence the bench noted from the confirmation of account that there was an opening balance of Rs. 31,60,000/- in the books of the assessee which was in debit. The assessee credited the account of M/s. Shrey Associates for an amount of Rs. 3,19,31,534/- on account of various bills for civil construction work. That M/s. Shrey Associates also levied service tax and or Goods and Service Tax to the assessee. The assessee has deducted TDS on the invoice so credited. For the year under consideration the assessee has paid Rs. 2,27,18,000 [ including opening amount paid for an amount of Rs. 31,60,000/- ] thereby leaving amount payable for an amount of Rs. 92,13,534/- for the invoices raised in December 2017.

Having analyzed these facts and since addition was made considering the provision of section 68 of the Act it would be appropriate to deal with that provision before going further; Cash credits.

10.5 As is evident from the above provision and the fact stated herein above how the credit for an amount of Rs. 92,13,534/- as unexplained credits out of the total credit in the books of account of the assessee for an amount of Rs. 3,19,31,534/-. Thus, the two stands for the same assessee and that too for a business transaction thereby the assessee deducted TDS and faced the levy of GST and Service Tax by a trading transaction cannot be considered as unexplained credit within the criteria of section 68 of the Act and thereby we direct the ld. AO to delete the same. We get support of our view from the decision of our own Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohara 301 ITR 0404 wherein our High Court has held that;

11. Vide Ground no. 5 the assessee challenges the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,74,99,500/- being the amount of capital introduced by partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar. As regards the evidence or that of the additional evidence we have while dealing with the ground no. 4 of the assessee have given detailed finding as to why the submission of the assessee is required to be admitted on the evidence already placed in the assessment proceeding or that of the proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) it is not imperative to repeat that finding again here in that fact shall apply in the ground of appeal no. 5 mutatis mutandis as the facts are same.

Before we deal with this ground of appeal on its merits it would be appropriate to extract the Schedule to the Balance of the previous year which reads as under The above credit that was lying as on 31.03.2017 was transferred to capital account as on 01.04.2017 and the same is supported by the confirmation filed by the assessee before the ld. AO which the ld. AO contend that these pages were blank, the said confirmation reads as under :

The figure of the addition derived by the ld. AO is arrived from the capital account as submitted by the assessee from the paper book page 45 which reads as under:

As is evident from the above account that the ld. AO out of the total credit of 21,20,58,634 less opening balance of Rs. 5,45,59,134/- derived the balance for an amount at Rs. 15,74,99,500/- as the fresh capital introduced by the assessee for the year under consideration.

The bench noted that out of the amount of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- is not the fresh capital but it is the credit lying in the account of the assessee firm and the same were transferred from the creditor’s account of the same partner for earlier year transaction cannot be added in the year under consideration. We get support of this view from the decision our own Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohara 301 ITR 0404 wherein our High Court has held that;

6. It does not require any elaborate argument that a carried forward amount of the previous year does not become an investment or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94. This alone is sufficient to sustain the order of the Tribunal in deleting the amount of Rs. 1,55,316/- from the assessment for Assessment Year 1993-94. Since the appeal succeeds on the merit of the assessee’s case in respect of the additions made in the income computed on reassessment, the validity of notice dt. 17th June, 1997 need not be gone into. Respectfully following the above judicial precedent, we do not find any reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- as of the previous year credit cannot be added in the year under consideration and therefore, we direct the ld. AO to delete the said addition as it does not come under the ambit of the provision of section 68 as held by our High Court in the case as cited herein above. Now as regards the credit of the balance amount of Rs. 61,49,500/- we also note that the credit of Rs. 13,30,000 transferred in the capital account of the assessee is also on account of the credit of the previous year and following the decision of CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohara (Supra) we direct the ld. AO to delete the same for an amount of Rs. 13,30,000/-.

Now for the remaining amount for an amount of Rs. 48,19,500/- we note that capital account of the assessee was credited for an amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- on the various dates as listed herein below :

4,00,000 05/04/2017 3,00,000 18/04/2017 1,50,000 25/04/2017 5,90,000 02/05/2017 Total 14,40,000

The assessee contended that Shri Ram Chandra Gujar capital account was credited for an amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- on various dates as mentioned above. The capital account was placed on record at Paper Book Page No.24-25. The assessee based on the evidence placed on record before the AO, additional evidence before the ld.

CIT(A) and before us contended that the source of the credit was from Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd on the dates as mentioned herein above. The amount was deposited in the bank account of the firm.

The amount was deposited by Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd on behalf credited the partners account by aforesaid amounts on aforesaid dates. Copy of bank account of the firm in Bank of Baroda placed on record at Page No.28-41reflecting the receipt of amount on aforesaid dates from Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. Since these credit being fresh and as argued by the ld. DR that the ld. AO and that of the ld. CIT(A) has categorically submitted that the same was not verified and therefore, since these transactions of fresh credit as claimed received require verification. Therefore, to that aspect of the matter we are of the considered view that the assessee must present all the documents before the ld. AO to justify the credit which is are submitted before us as an additional evidence which we admit and direct the ld. AO verify the contention and for this limited purpose for verification of this credit of Rs. 14,40,000/- the matter is restored to the file of the ld. AO.

Similarly, the assessee claims that for an amount of Rs. 33,79,500/- the amount was received from the disclosed source which also requires verification and that matter is also restored to the file of the ld. AO to verify the evidence submitted in the form of additional evidence before us and that of the ld. CIT(A). Based on these observations, ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is treated as partly allowed. nature does not require any finding. As we have considered the ground no. 5 in majority in favour of the assessee there is no need to make any addition in hands of the partner of the assessee firm. Ground no. 8 being general does not require our finding. Ground no. 1 & 2 raised are on the technical ground and since we have considered the merits of the dispute raised by the assessee these technical grounds becomes academic. Ground no. 3 being the additional evidence not admitted by the ld. CIT(A) since we have while dealing with the ground no. 4 & 5 duly considered that evidence appropriately and therefore this ground is disposed off accordingly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/09/2025.

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:- 10/09/2025 *Santosh/Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Behror . 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 4.

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत