RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act without appreciating that the said amount has already been credited to the profit and loss account on which tax has been paid by the Assessee therefore adding the same amount again has resulted in double addition which is grossly incorrect and therefore the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made by the AO.

5. Ground Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.

4. Briefly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed ITR u/s 139 on 29.09.2015 declaring business income of Rs. 1,29,27,430/-. Based on the search action on M/s. Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd (DRAIPL) the revenue was in possession of the information that the assessee benefited of the unaccounted money by way of booking bogus subcontracts expenses. Record reveals that the assessee received sub contract of Rs. 8,69,21,424/- from Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd during the year. The assessee failed to provide necessary supporting documents to establish that the transaction between the assessee and Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon Pvt. Ltd.are genuine during the course of proceedings of the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. Therefore, ld. AO noted that the income received from Dinesh R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd. remained unexplained. Hence after complying the detailed procedure in the order of the Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal and instruction no. 1/2022 dated 11.05.2022 issued by the CBDT the notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.07.2022 to the assessee. income in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act.

Ld. AO issued statutory notices as required and noted that as the assessee failed establish that the work was actually executed by the assessee. He also noted that the assessee failed to furnish a valid return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, the amount of Rs.

6,26,68,011/- received as sub-contract receipt from DRAIPL remained unexplained. So ld. AO presumed that the assessee has brought the income from the undisclosed sources to the books of account and accordingly ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 6,26,68,011/- in the hands of the assessee as per provision of section 68 of the Act.

5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below:

“6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant, remand report and rejoinder filed by the appellant. On going through the same, it is seen that the appellant had challenged the proceedings initiated u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO has relied upon the various case laws in his favour. In the remand report, the AO did not accept the submissions of the appellant in this regard and has relied upon the OM dated 20.02.2023 issued by CBDT wherein it has been clarified that even after insertion of Section 151A, the JAO has the jurisdiction to issue notice u/s.148of the Act. In support, the AO has also relied & 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal upon the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Triton Overseas (P) Ltd. 6.2 In the rejoinder to the remand report, the appellant has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Punjab And Haryana High Court in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. UOI [CWP-15745-2024] dated 19.07.2024 wherein the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court referring to the Official Memorandum dated 20.02.2023 held that circulars, instructions and letters issued by Board or any other authority cannot override statutory provisions. The appellant also relied upon the decision of Telangana High Court in the case of Venkataramana Reddy Patioola [TS-557-HC-2024(TEL)] dated 24 July 2024 and also the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kairos Properties Pvt. Ltd. [TS-576- HC-2024 (BOM)] dated 05.08.2024 and hence submitted that notice u/s.148 issued by the JAO is illegal. I have gone through the case laws relied by the AO and the appellant. 6.3 It is seen that the Hon'ble ITAT has vehemently relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., however, the matter is sub-judice and the appeal has been preferred against the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court before Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, it is seen that there are plethora of judgments wherein the Courts/ITATs held that the issuance of notice u/s.148 by JAO is legal and valid. In the case of TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- “83. In Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)22, the Court directly addressed whether the JAO could exercise assessment authority alongside the faceless assessment system. The Court concluded that, while the faceless system centralizes case handling through the NFAC, this framework does not completely replace or nullify the JAO's role. The CBDT notifications further affirm this shared responsibility, specifying that the NFAC and the JAO hold concurrent jurisdiction, thereby allowing the faceless system to conduct assessments without stripping the JAO of its foundational authority.

-(22) From a further reading of Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 attached to Section 148, it is clear that the provisions Under Section 148 for issuance of notice before making assessment re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 operate in two different ways. For the purpose of Section 148, where Section 148A is applicable, Explanation 1 provides: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx (23) The provisions contained in Explanation 1 shows that the information with the Assessing Officer for the purpose of Section 148, which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment under the Explanation would mean: (i) any information in the case of the assessee, for the relevant assessment year, in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board from time to time: or (ii) any audit objection to the effect that the assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year has not been made in accordance with the provisions of this Act, of 2024: GUJHC: 54567-DB (iii) any information received under an agreement referred to in Section 90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals with the information received during search and seizure operations under Section 132 requires fulfillment of pre- requisites conditions. noted hereinbefore, in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue & 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal (24) The concept of Risk Management Strategy formulated by the Board is incorporated in Clause (i) of Explanation 1, as also specified in Clause 3 of the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Explanation 1 clause (i) to Section 148, which is not applicable in the case of information received during the course of search and seizure under Section 132. (25) From the language employed in the Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 to Section 148 of the Act' 1961, we reach at an opinion that the method of automated allocation, le for random allocation of cases through algorithm, or by using suitable technological tools. including artificial intelligence and machine learning, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board, as referred to in Explanation 1 clause (i) to Section 148 of the Act, for issuance of notice under Section 148 in a faceless manner, as per the scheme framed vide notification dated 29.03.2022, cannot be applied to the case of Search and Seizure under Section 132, where the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAD) is required to record his satisfaction on the basis of the maternal for affirmation of opinion in an honest and bona fide manner. (26) We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer on a perusal of the information received by him as a result of search and seizure operation. under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961. requires application of human mind, inasmuch as, reasons affirmed on the part of the Satisfaction Note may also become subject matter of scrutiny by the Court in a case of challenge, where the Court in exercise of power of judicial review may examine as to whether they are actuated by mala fides or passed on extraneous or irrelevant considerations. (27) The decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) has been rendered in a case, which falls within the arena of Explanation 1 to Section 148 and not where Explanation 2 to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, would be attracted (28) From the above, by reading all the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 as also the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Central Government framing scheme for "E- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment under sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained.

& 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal -(30) Moreover, Section 151A contemplates framing of the scheme by the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette, even for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 148 in the case of re-assessment or sanction for issue of such notice under Section 151, with the aim to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by eliminating the interface between the income tax authority and the assessee or any other person to the extent technologically feasible. (31) The feasibility of implying technology for the process, therefore, would be relevant. There may be a situation, where a scheme may be framed by the Central Government for issuance of the notice under Section 148 even in the case of Search and Seizure under Section 132 of the Act 1961, so as to meet out the expectations of the legislature under Section 151A, to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by applying artificial intelligence, technological innovations, etc., but as of now, from a careful reading of the notification dated 29.03.2022, along with the statutory provisions, we find that the aforesaid notification does not cover a case where notice under Section 148 is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) the information received by him in the matter of Search and Seizure under Section 132 of the Act 1961, or requisitioned under Section 132A.// 99. Returning then to the Faceless Reassessment Scheme 2022 itself, we find sufficient merit in the interpretation of its clauses as has been commended for our consideration by the respondents. Clause 3 of the said scheme provides that assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act as well as issuance of notice under Section 148 would be through automated allocation in accordance with the risk management strategy and in a faceless manner. The respondents rightly draw our attention to the usage of punctuation at various places in Clause 3. A careful reading of that clause shows that the draftsman has used a comma immediately after the phrase "shall be through automated allocation". Yet another comma appears after the phrase "for issuance of notice". It thus appears to have been the clear intent of the author to separate and segregate the phases of initiation of action in accordance with RMS, the formation of opinion whether circumstances warrant action under Section 148 of the Act being undertaken by issuance of notice and the actual undertaking of assessment itself.

6.5 In the grounds of appeal No.2 & 3, the appellant has contended that the AO has wrongly made the addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- u/s.68 of the Act as unexplained credits. 6.6 The return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed by assessee on29.09.2015 declaring income of Rs 1,29,27,430/-. There was an information available with the department revealed the appellant has received sub contract from M/s Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. Further, the appellant was one of the beneficiaries who have received bogus sub contract of Rs.8,69,21,424/- from M/s. Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. Also, the appellant during the course of proceedings of the order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 failed to provide necessary supporting documents to establish that the transaction between the appellant and M/s Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd are genuine. Therefore the subcontract receipts from DRAIPL remained unexplained. Hence, after complying the detailed procedure in the order of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30/07/2022. Thereafter, the AO issued show cause notice u/s.142(1) of the Act to the appellant to furnish the submissions. In response, the appellant made the partial submissions.

& 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal 6.7 On perusal of the submissions, the AO noticed that instead of the sub contract agreement the appellant furnished the letter sent by the appellant to the DRAIPL expressing its interest to do the portion of the project as sub contractor with the approval of NHAI. However, on agreement the acceptance of the parties, stamps are not on the document, hence AO did not accept the same as a sub-contract agreement. 6.8 On perusal of the document submitted by the assessee as 'approval letter of NHAI', the AO noticed that the Project Director of NHAI has only forwarded the proposal for approval of sub-contracting work to the Team Leader, M/s. Theme Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. However, in the absence of approval from NHAI, it is not possible to presume the work has been executed by the appellant. 6.9 Further, the document submitted as 'VAT exemption certificate and VAT order by the appellant, it was found that the exemption was granted to DRAIPL and not to the appellant. Hence the document submitted as 'VAT exemption certificate and VAT order by the appellant cannot be considered an evidence for the execution of contract work. 6.10. In the assessment order, the AO mentioned that the appellant was requested to furnish specific details vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act. However, the appellant failed to furnish the relevant contract agreement with M/s Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd., income received in connection with the execution of work as per the agreement with supporting documentary evidences and the genuineness of the transaction of the appellant with M/s Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd. The appellant has furnished only copy of the ledger account of DRAIPL maintained in the books of the appellant and not ledger confirmation account. The appellant also failed to furnish copy of audited financial statements, however, the appellant furnished copy of profit and loss account without any signature and seal of the tax auditor is affixed. 6.11 In view of the above, the AO held that the appellant failed to establish that the wok was actually executed by the it and has also failed to furnish a valid return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the amount of Rs.6,26,68,011/- received as sub contract receipts from DRAIPL remained unexplained and hence the amount received Rs.6,26,68,011/- added to the total income of the appellant as unexplained credits in the books of account under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the AO. 6.12 Now, the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted as under: 17. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 9 May 2023 (PB 96-102) was issued to the Appellant against which no reply was filed. Rebuttal of the arguments basis which the FAO made addition is as under: Arguments by FAO Rebuttal by Appellant The sub contract agreement entered The letter dated 7 August 2014 between the Appellant and the DRAIPL executed between the Appellant and is not acceptable as the acceptance of DRAIPL is duly, signed by the Appellant the parties, stamp etc are not on the at all the pages and signed by DRAIPL document on the last page. Thus, the observation of the FAO that the agreement is not signed is incorrect. Approval letter of NHAI to appoint the Approval was granted by NHAI to Appellant as a subcontractor is not DRAIPL to sub-contract work to the available. Appellant is enclosed at PB-103 The Appellant has failed to furnish the Relevant contract with DRAIPL was relevant contract agreement with furnished. The income earned has DRAIPL, income received in connection already been offered to tax. with the execution of work as per the agreement with supporting documentary evidences and the genuineness of the transaction The Appellant has failed to furnish copy Audited financial statements of the of audited financial statements and has appellant are enclosed at PB 104-146. only furnished copy of profit and loss account and no signature and seal of the tax auditor is affixed.

18. Basis the above documents, it is evident that the Appellant is an approved sub-contractor of NHAI, the receipts from DRAIPL has already been offered to tax, the Appellant has actually executed the work and therefore no addition can be made. 6.13 The appellant also submitted that during the year, it raised invoices of Rs.6,26,68,011/- on DRAIPL against which payment received in bank account of the appellant was Rs.6,20,41,331/- and TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section 68 of the Act. 6.14 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the AO is directed to verify the claim of appellant and the documents furnished by the appellant as mentioned above in para 6.12 and delete the addition made u/s.68 of the Act if the same are found to be correct, after due verification and as per law. Accordingly, grounds of appeal

No.2 and 3 are allowed.

7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.”

CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal. To support the grounds so raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee, has filed a detailed written submissions which reads as follows :-

“Ground No 1: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and the documents furnished without appreciating that as per section 251 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has been granted the power to either confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment and the power to set aside the assessment for making fresh assessment has been granted only where assessment is made under section 144 of the Act and therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of section 251 of the Act. Facts:- 1. The Appellant, an individual, filed return of income (“RoI”) declaring a total income of Rs 1,29,27,430 for the subject AY (PB 1).Re-assessment order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22 May 2023 was passed by Ld. Faceless Assessing Office (“Ld. FAO”) assessing total income at Rs 7,55,95,441 by making the following addition:

• Unexplained cash credits under section 68 of Act of Rs 6,26,68,011

2. Against the assessment order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre [“CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 17 February 2025, while allowing the appeal of the Appellant, at paras 6.14 of its order, directed the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“Ld. JAO”) to verify the claim of the Appellant and documents furnished and delete the addition made under section 68 of the Act if the same are found to be correct, after due verification and as per law. Relevant extracts of the decision are as under: “6.14 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the AO is directed to verify the claim of appellant and the documents furnished by the appellant as mentioned above in para 6.12 and delete the addition made u/s.68 of the Act if the same are found to be correct, after due verification and as per law. Accordingly, grounds of appeal

No.2 and 3 are allowed.” Submission:-

3. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) by directing the Ld. JAO to verify the claim & 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal and the documents furnished by the Appellant is against the powers granted under section 251 of the Act to the CIT(A). Relevant extracts are as under: “Powers of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals). 251. (1)In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment: [Provided that where such appeal is against an order of assessment made under section 144, he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment;] (aa) in an appeal against the order of assessment in respect of which the proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 245HA, he may, after taking into consideration all the material and other information produced by the assessee before, or the results of the inquiry held or evidence recorded by, the Settlement Commission, in the course of the proceeding before it and such other material as may be brought on his record, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; (b) in an appeal against an order imposing a penalty, he may confirm or cancel such order or vary it so as either to enhance or to reduce the penalty; (c) in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit.”

4. As evident above, the CIT(A) has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment where the appeal is against the order of assessment. However, only in case where the assessment order is passed under section 144 of the Act, the CIT(A) may set aside the assessment order and refer the matter back to the Assessing Officer and that too for making a fresh assessment.

5. The assessment order dated 31 May 2023 was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.Further, at para 4.4.1 of the assessment order, it is mentioned that as the Appellant has not furnished a valid return of income, the assessment is proposed to be completed under section 144 of the Act, however the same was done under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.Further, the Ld. CIT(A) had also obtained a remand report dated 16 August 2024 (PB 177-178) and therefore directing the JAO to verify the claim or documents filed by the Appellant is in violation of section 251 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) should have confirmed, reduced, enhanced or annulled the assessment order but should have not set aside the order for verification to the AO.

3.The short question involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Siliguri CIT(A), after having fully agreed with the & 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal assessee and reached a conclusion that the assessing officer committed an error in making certain additions, could have remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for certain verifications. Section 251 of the Act deals with the powers of the Commissioner of Appeals. Sub-Section (1) states that in disposing of an appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the powers as enumerated in clauses (a), (aa), (b), (c). In so far as the case on hand, clause (a) of section 251(1) of the Act should be relevant, which states in an appeal against the order of assessment the Commissioner (Appeals) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. On a reading of the Finance Act, 2001 (Circular No. 14 of2001) the Commissioner of Appeals had no power to remand the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh assessment in accordance with the direction given by the Commissioner (Appeals) after making such further enquiry as may be necessary. Though such power was conferred on the Commissioner (Appeals), the said provision stood omitted by the Finance Act, 2001. In the explanatory notes on the provisions relating to direct taxes, the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been dealt with in paragraph 78.1 which reads as follows :- "78.1 Under the existing provision contained in sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Income-tax Act, inan appeal filed before a Commissioner (Appeals) against an order of assessment, the Commissioner(Appeals) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, or he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment in accordance with the directions given by him, after making such further enquiry as may be necessary. With a view to help bringing about an early finalisation to the assessment and to avoid prolonging the process of litigation, the Act has amended section 251 so as to provide that, in an appeal filed before the Commissioner(Appeals), against an order of assessment, the Commissioner (Appeals) may not set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment. The Commissioner(Appeals) continues to have the powers under section 250 of making further inquiry, or directing the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him, which can be made use of in appeals needing further enquiry or gathering of additional facts or evidence. 78.2 This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2001."

6. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant on the above submission. Though in the order passed by the CIT(A), the word "prima facie" has been used, from a cumulative reading of an order passed by the CIT(A) we find that the case has been discussed on merits and thereafter a finding has been recorded that the assessing officer was not justified in making the addition & 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal and there was a positive direction to delete the addition. If such is the finding, mere use of the word "prima facie" could not make prima facie view as the CIT(A) has discussed the matter elaborately taking into the consideration the factual position. Before the learned Tribunal, the assessee had specifically raised the ground that the CIT(A) exceeded the limits of powers statutorily bestowed as per Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and grossly erred in law in restoring the case to the assessing officer for action in terms of the order dated 23-11-2011 passed by the CIT(A). Though, such a specific ground raised

by the appellant before the Tribunal and noted by the Tribunal in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, this aspect has not been dealt with by the learned Tribunal. Thus, in our view not only the CIT(A) committed an error of law by remanding the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh consideration after having held in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal also did not deal with the said issue. In the light of the statutory embargo, the order of remand passed by the CIT(A) is not tenable in law and consequently, the same required to be set aside as well as the order passed by the learned Tribunal.” (emphasis supplied) • Sapphire Land Development (P) Ltd vs DCIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com

50. (Mumbai - Trib.) (PB 165-176): The Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT has held as under:

14. It is an established position of law about the powers of the Ld. CIT (A) as discussed (Supra), based on above, Ld. CIT (A) can confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but he cannot remand the matter back to the file of AO. Direction of Ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to re-verify claim of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 7,82,60,511/- will tantamount to remand of matter back to the file of AO which is not permissible in the eyes of law. If required and Ld. CIT(A) deemed it fit to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, he may ask for a report from the AO to act. Hence, this action of Ld. CIT (A) is bad- in-law and not sustainable. Hence, this ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed.

7. In the instant case as well, the Appellant had furnished all the information before the Ld. AO and before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) had also obtained a remand report dated 16 August 2024 from the Ld. AO. Thus, no question of directing the Ld. AO for verification of documents filed by the Appellant arises and therefore the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be kindly quashed as being in violation of express provisions laid down in section 251 of the Act. Ground No 2:

Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the & 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd had deducted TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. Ground No 3: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act without appreciating that the said amount has already been credited to the profit and loss account on which tax has been paid by the Assessee therefore adding the same amount again has resulted in double addition which is grossly incorrect and therefore the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made by the AO. Facts:- 8. The re-assessment proceeding of the Appellant was initiated due to the reason that department gathered information during search action on Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd (“DRAIPL”) that DRAIPL generated unaccounted money by way of booking bogus sub-contract expense and alleged that the Appellant is one of the beneficiariesof the bogus sub contract expenses. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Appellant filed detailed submission stating that he is an approved sub-contractor of National Highways Authority of India Limited (“NHAI”) and furnished the necessary evidences and documents as asked for.At paragraphs 4.4.3 to 4.4.7 (page number 5-6 of the assessment order), the Ld. FAO listed down the followings reasons of making the addition: • The sub contract agreement entered between the Appellant and the DRAIPL is not acceptable as the acceptance of the parties, stamp etc are not on the document; • Approval letter of NHAI to appoint the Appellant as a subcontractor is not available; • The Appellant has failed to furnish the relevant contract agreement with DRAIPL, income received in connection with the execution of work as per the agreement with supporting documentary evidences and the genuineness of the transaction. • The Appellant has failed to furnish copy of audited financial statements and has only furnished copy of profit and loss account and no signature and seal of the tax auditor is affixed.

In view of the above, the FAO held that the Appellant failed to establish that the wok was actually executed by the Appellant and thus made addition of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act.

& 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal Submission:- 9. The Appellant is a civil contractor and carries on the business with his proprietary concern M/s Radhakishan, having registration with PWD, Rajasthan in AA class category. Project road work “Widening and Strengthen to two lane with paved shoulder of Nimbi Jodha-Degana-Merta city section of NH-458 from km.0.000 to km.139.900 in the state of Rajasthan under NHDP on EPC mode” was awarded by NHAI to DRAIPL, Ahmedabad.

12. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 9 May 2023 (PB 48-54) was issued to the Appellant against which no reply was filed. Rebuttal of the arguments basis which the FAO made addition is as under:

Arguments by FAO Rebuttal by Appellant The sub contract agreement entered The letter dated 7 August 2014 executed between the Appellant and the between the Appellant and DRAIPL is duly DRAIPL is not acceptable as the signed by the Appellant at all the pages and acceptance of the parties, stamp etc signed by DRAIPL on the last page. Thus, are not on the document the observation of the FAO that the agreement is not signed is incorrect. Approval letter of NHAI to appoint Approval was granted by NHAI to DRAIPL the Appellant as a subcontractor is to sub-contract work to the Appellant is not available enclosed at 55 The Appellant has failed to furnish Relevant contract with DRAIPL was the relevant contract agreement with furnished. The income earned has already DRAIPL, income received in been offered to tax. connection with the execution of work as per the agreement with supporting documentary evidences and the genuineness of the transaction. The Appellant has failed to furnish Audited financial statements of the copy of audited financial statements Appellant are enclosed at PB 56-98. and has only furnished copy of profit and loss account and no signature and seal of the tax auditor is affixed.

13. Basis the above documents, it is evident that the Appellant is an approved sub-contractor of NHAI, the receipts from DRAIPL has already been offered to & 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal tax, the Appellant has actually executed the work and therefore no addition can be made.Inspite of above submissions and documentary evidences, the FAO passed the assessment order making addition of Rs 6,26,68,011as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of Act and the Ld. CIT(A) incorrectly directed the Ld. AO to verify the same documents which were already filed before the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings.

“Cash credits.

15. In the instant case, the Appellant has duly explained the nature and source of the sum that is credited in the books of accounts along with documentary evidences such as details of party, invoices raised, Form 26AS, bank statements, etc and therefore section 68 of the Act is not applicable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: • Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. Income tax officer (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) dated 7 November 2006 (PB 99-106): The High Court held as under: “Apparently when the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers in hands against the payment on delivery of the vehicles on receipt from the dealer the question of such amount standing in the books of account of the assessee would not attract s. 68 because the & 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal cash deposits become self-explanatory and such amount was received by the assessee from the customers against which the delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,98,000 would not arise. Therefore, no addition was required to be made in respect of the amount which was found to be the cash receipts from the customers and against which delivery of vehicle was made to them. • Shree Sanand Textile Indus Ltd. vs The Dy CIT (ITA No.1166/Ahd/2014) dated 6 January 2020 (PB 107-132): The Ahmedabad ITAT held that section 68 cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. It is because the sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income at the time of sale only. Relevant extracts of the decision are as under: “9.3. Admittedly, the amount of sale as claimed by the assessee was offered to tax by reflecting the same in the trading and profit and loss account. This fact has not been doubted by the authorities below. However, the existence of the parties was not proved by the assessee based on the documentary evidence during the proceedings. Accordingly, the learned CIT (A) treated the amount received from such parties as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. In this connection we note that the impugned amount has been taxed twice firstly the same was treated as sales and secondly the same was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Even if we assume that the action of the learned CIT (A) is correct i.e. the impugned amount is representing the cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act. Then, the learned CIT (A) was duty-bound to reduce the same from the amount of sales as the same does not represent the sale but unexplained cash credit. As such, the same amount cannot be held taxable twice as per the wish of the learned CIT (A). In our considered view the action of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent of treating the same as sale proceeds and the unexplained cash credit simultaneously. … 9.6. We also note that the provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. It is because the sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income at the time of sale only.” • Dewas Soya Ltd, Ujjain vs Department Of Income Tax (ITA Nos. 426 to 428/Ind/2012) dated 23 January 2013 (PB 133-160): The ITAT held as under:

“6.20 The claim of the appellant that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year is also acceptable because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting gross profit from same price ultimately credited to profit & loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s. 68 of the Act.

& 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal 6.21 This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72ITR194 (SC) that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from a source, which has already been taxed". The assessee has already offered the sales for taxation hence the onus has been discharged by it and the same income cannot be taxed again. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Durga Prasad More (1969) 72ITR807 (SC) in which it was held "If the amount represented the income of the assessee of the previous year, it was liable to be included in the total income and an enquiry whether for the purpose of bringing the amount to tax it was from a business activity or from some other source was not relevant".

In view of the above, it is submitted that section 68 of the Act is not attracted and double addition cannot be made and therefore the addition be directed to be deleted.

16. It is further submitted that the CIT(A) in the case of Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company vide order dated 8 January 2025 (enclosed Annexure) deleted the addition of Rs 15.32 crores made in its hands on account of sub- contract receipts received from the same party DRAIPL in respect of the same project for AY 2017-18 holding that DRAIPL had genuinely subcontracted the work to Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company and also in the case of DRAIPL, the Ahmedabad ITAT in deleted the bogus expense to the tune of 16.98 crores added by the JAO. In view of the above, it is requested to kindly direct the AO to delete the addition made as sub-contract work has genuinely been carried out by the Appellant and the receipts therefrom have been already offered to tax. Conclusion: 17. It is submitted that the addition made by the FAO are incorrect due to the following reasons: • The observation of the FAO that the Appellant has not furnished relevant documents is incorrect as the Appellant has filed all the details and information from time to time as evidenced by above documents and acknowledgements of filing submissions on the e-filing portal. • The Appellant has submitted the sub contract signed by DRAIPL (PB 10- 13) and submitted approval of the NHAI (PB 55) evidencing the genuineness of the transaction. • Addition of Rs 6,26,68,011 has resulted in double addition as the Appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section 68 of the Act. In view of above, it is submitted that the assessment order passed is grossly incorrect, based on false assumption and allegation, and without considering the detailed documents submitted during the assessment proceeding the therefore the additions made be deleted.”

S. No. Particulars Page File before No. AO/CIT(A) 1. Acknowledgment of filing return of income along with 1-6 Yes computation of income 2. Submission dated 30 January 2023 submitted following details: 7-9 Yes • Letter dated 7 August 2014 executed between the 10-13 Appellant and DRAIPL • Letter dated 10 June 2015 by DRAIPL to NHAI for 14 obtaining approval for sub construct of work • 15 Letter dated 16 June 2015 by NHAI to M/s Theme 16-37 Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. (“M/s Theme”) • 38-46 Bank statement 47 • Confirmation of account along with Form 26AS • Profit and loss account 3.

3. Show cause notice dated 9 may 2023 48-54 Yes 4. Approval of NHAI to DRAIPL to sub-contract work to the 55 Yes Appellant 5. Audited financial statements of the Appellant 56-98 Yes 6. Copy of decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. 99-106 Yes Harshila Chordia vs. Income tax officer (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) 7. Copy of decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Shree 107-132 Yes Sanand Textile Indus Ltd. vs The Dy CIT (ITA No.1166/Ahd/2014) dated 6 January 2020 8. Copy of decision of Indore Tribunal in the case of Dewas Soya 133-160 Yes Ltd, Ujjain vs Department of Income Tax (ITA Nos. 426 to 428/Ind/2012) dated 23 January 2013 9. Copy of decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Arun 161-164 NA Kumar Bose vs ITO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 282 (Calcutta) 10. Copy of decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sapphire 165-176 NA Land Development (P) Ltd vs DCIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com 50 (Mumbai - Trib.) 11. Remand report dated 16 August 2024 obtained by CIT(A) from 177-178 NA the AO 12. Rejoinder submission of the Appellant against remand report 179-181 NA submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee the power of the ld. CIT(A) to remand back the matter to the file of the ld. AO was vested upon him w.e.f. 01.10.2024 and the order in question is not passed as per provision of section 144 of the Act. He also relied upon the decision of the CIT(A) passed in the case of Bharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company [ PAN : AABFB4917G ] for A. Y. 2017-18 it was held that the sub-contract income received from DRAIPL was not considered as bogus and the addition made in that case was deleted relying on the decision of the ITAT in the case of DRAIPL.

10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee he challenges the addition of Rs. 6,26,88,011/- under section 68 by treating the contract income from M/s DRAIPL as bogus. During the course of search proceedings in the case of M/s. DRAIPL it was found that DRAIPL has been generating unaccounted money by booking bogus sub-contract expenses and purchases. DRAIPL was awarded by National Highway Authority of India and that work was sub-contracted to the assessee firm. During the DRAIPL as payments for the above contract work. These payments were received through bank after deduction of TDS. The appellant had accounted these receipts in the total turnover as per audited profit and loss account and paid tax on profits thereon. All details of expenditures and bills were submitted during assessment proceedings. However, the assessing officer stated that it is not verifiable from the details of direct expenses and copies of bills whether the said expenditure was actually incurred against the contract of DRAIPL. The AO concluded that no expenditures have been incurred to perform work on the above mentioned contract and proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 6,26,88,011/- u/s. 68 of the Act.

The assessing officer has not doubted the receipt of Rs.

6,26,88,011/- as sub-contracting income from M/s DRAIPL. The appellant had offered source of credits along with documentary evidences in the shape of Work Order, ITR and ledger accounts. There was no doubt regarding identity of Main contractor and actual execution of project by DRAIPL as the contract was awarded by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The suspicion is whether the work 15was actually executed by the appellant. The appellant submitted a letter dated 07.102015 issued by National Highway Authority of India wherein it is apparent that the connection with widening and strengthening of two lane with paved aboulders of Nimbai Jodha (near Ladnu Degana Merta City section of NH

From the perusal of documents furnished during assessment proceedings it can be concluded that appellant had provided necessary explanations and evidences regarding the genuineness of the subcontract.

The Bench also noted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Dineshchandra R Infracon Private Limited vide order and 414/Ahd/2018 relevant to AY 2016-17 has deleted the bogus expenses added by the jurisdictional AO. From the perusal of the above order, it is evident that the additions regarding bogus sub-contract expenses in the case of DRAIPL which were the only basis for co-ordinate reopening the case of assessee, stood deleted by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad. Further, of the sub-contract receipt Rs. 6,26,88,011/- was declared in the return of income filed by the assessee and due taxes were paid. Hence on being consistent to the finding so recorded wherein above we considered the ground No. 1 to 3 in hands of the assessee.

Ground No. 4 being general does not require our finding and ground No. 5 relates to the awarding cost which the assessee has not preferred any argument and therefore, the same is also not adjudicated.

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

11. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal;

1 Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and the documents furnished without appreciating that as per section 251 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has been granted the power to either confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment and the power to set aside the assessment for making fresh assessment has been granted only where assessment is made under section 144 of the Act and therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) is in violation of section 251 of the Act.

2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 42,00,40,000 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd had deducted TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record.

& 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 42,00,40,000 under section 68 of the Act without appreciating that the said amount has already been credited to the profit and loss account on which tax has been paid by the Assessee therefore adding the same amount again has resulted in double addition which is grossly incorrect and therefore the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made by the AO.

4. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in making adhoc disallowance of Rs 2,65,36,577 as unexplained expenses under section 37 of the Act by assuming project expense of Rs 26,53,65,770 towards project 4 awarded by DRAIPL without contradicting the evidences filed during assessment proceedings in relation to various expenses incurred by the Assessee for carrying on the business and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record.

6. Ground Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.

12. As is evident from the above grounds of appeal that the case of the is similar to the case in and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts, various grounds raised by the assessee and the arguments of both the parties in ITA No. 695/JP/2025. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in for the Assessment Year 2015-16 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Radhakishan Beniwal no. 1 to 3 and 5 & 6 is concerned. Thereby now the only one ground that is different in this year is disallowance adhoc amount of Rs 2,65,36,577 as unexplained expenses under section 37 of the Act by assuming that project expense of Rs 26,53,65,770 towards project awarded by DRAIPL without contradicting the evidences filed during assessment proceedings in relation to various expenses incurred by the Assessee for carrying on the business and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. Apropos to this ground the relevant finding of the ld. AO is as under:

In view the above facts, information available and failure on the part of assessee to establish the genuineness of receipt from DRAIPL, therefore, the amount of �42,00,40,000 is treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee. Also expenses claimed related to the receipt from DRAIPL are not explained therefore 10% of the proportionate expenses that is 2,65,36,577 is disallowed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per the discussion and added to the income of the assessee. 12.1 When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he set aside the issue to the file of the ld. AO by observing as under ;

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the AO is directed to verify the claim of appellant and the documents furnished by the appellant and delete the addition made u/s. 37(1) of the Act if the same are found to be correct, after due verification and as per law. in support of the ground raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission which reads as follows:

Ground No 4:

Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in making adhoc disallowance of Rs 2,65,36,577 as unexplained expenses under section 37 of the Act by assuming project expense of Rs 26,53,65,770 towards project awarded by DRAIPL without contradicting the evidences filed during assessment proceedings in relation to various expenses incurred by the Assessee for carrying on the business and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. Facts and submission:

19. The Ld. AO disallowed Rs 2,65,36,577 as unexplained expenses under section 37 of the Act by assuming project expense of Rs 26,53,65,770 towards project awarded by DRAIPL. It is submitted that the amount of project expense of Rs 26,53,65,770 has been only assumed by the Ld. AO and the basis of the same is not provided to the Appellant. The Appellant had duly submitted that site wise / project wise expenses are not maintained, rather expenses incurred in aggregate are maintained on expense wise basis ie bitumen, cement, greet sand and stone, sand and soil, diesel, etc (refer profit and loss account at PB 38) and therefore assuming expenditure of Rs 26,53,65,770 is only on the basis of surmises, conjectures and presumptions.

(b) The expenditure must not be:- (i) Capital in nature; (ii) Personal in nature; or (iii) An allowance of the character described in sections 30 to 36”

The allowability of the expenditure incurred has been examined in the following paragraphs, in light of the aforesaid principles.

The expenditure must be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession

It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), that commercial expediency has to be emphasized on for deciding whether payment of money is a deductible expenditure. In the case of CIT vs Kirloskar Tractors Limited [1998] 231 ITR 849 (Bom), it was held that the purpose of the expenditure and the effect should be considered from a common sense angle having due regard to the business realities.

A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several other cases, inter alia: • CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd [1966] 62 ITR 638 (SC) • India Cements Ltd vs CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) Reliance can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Private Ltd. vs CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC), wherein it was held that: ‘…If the outgoing or expenditure is so related to the carrying on or conduct of the business, that it may be regarded as an integral part of the profit-earning process and not for acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character, the possession of which is a condition of the carrying on of the business, the expenditure may be regarded as revenue expenditure…’

In light of the principles laid down in the above-stated judgments and the facts of the instant case, it is submitted that the operating expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and are thus fully deductible.

The expenditure must not be capital in nature & 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal In the instant case, the expenditure has not resulted in creation of asset of any enduring nature and is therefore not capital expenditure. The expenditure must not be personal in nature or an allowance of the character described in sections 30 to 36 In the instant case, the fact that the expenditure is not personal in nature has not been doubted at all. Needless to say, this expenditure has not been dealt with in any of the provisions from section 30 to section 36 of the Act. Therefore, the subject expenditure satisfies the third test for allowability of expenditure under the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act.

material placed on record the ld. CIT(A) should have directed to delete the adhoc disallowance made by the ld. AO.

12.3 On the other hand, ld. DR representing the revenue supported the orders of the lower authority and vehemently submitted that since the matter is remanded back to the ld. AO there cannot be any grievance of the assessee.

12.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground no. 4 the assessee challenged the adhoc disallowance of Rs 2,65,36,577 as unexplained expenses under section 37(1) of the Act by assuming project expense of Rs 26,53,65,770 towards project awarded by DRAIPL without contradicting the evidences filed during assessment proceedings in relation to various expenses incurred by the Assessee for carrying on the business and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. The bench noted that in this case the assessment proceeding were participated by the assessee and has provided all the details as called for by the assessee the books of account of the assessee were produced and being audited not founded any fault. Record reveals that the assessee gets his books of accounts audited under the Income and duly recorded in the books of account. The bench noted that the assessee is a big contractor there cannot be disallowance on adhoc basis which are for the purposes of the business and without rejecting the books of account the adhoc addition cannot be made. At this stage it would be appropriate to deal with the provision of section 145 of the Act which reads as follows;

Method of accounting. 145. (1) Income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" shall, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. (2) The Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette from time to time income computation and disclosure standards to be followed by any class of assessees or in respect of any class of income. (3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) has not been regularly followed by the assessee, or income has not been computed in accordance with the standards notified under sub-section (2), the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144.

As is evident that section 145(3) provides that if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) has not been regularly followed by the assessee, or income has not been computed in accordance with the standards notified under sub-section (2), the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided too in part he has not given the required notice pointing out any specific defects in the books of account and thereby proceeded to make the lump sum disallowance which are not permitted. We get support of our view from the various decision cited by the ld. AR of the assessee and the one which directly applicable to the facts of the case is our Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gupta, K. N. Construction Co. [ 59 taxmann.com 293 (Rajasthan) ] wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that;

11. Though the argument of the learned officer of the Revenue can be said to be proper and justified that in a case where the assessee manipulates the accounts by keeping the profit margins commensurate with the past assessment years or slightly increases and that itself by a large cannot be a basis for acceptance of the results. But, in the face of the said facts, if it is for the Assessing Officer to bring on record some concrete material/evidence to make a proper addition. We have already noticed hereinabove that the Assessing Officer has merely disallowed 20 per cent. or 10 per cent., as the case may be, out of the various expenses, which, in our view, is not proper and he had to bring on record justifiable basis for making of an addition and bring on record some evidence for making of addition.

& 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal 14. This court in the case of CIT v. Singhal Natural Stone (P.) Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 493/208 Taxman 184 (Raj.) has held that the finding about the rejection of income from a particular amount (from Rs. 20,78,821 to Rs. 5,15,259) was based on appreciation of material on record and, accordingly, it was observed that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises so as to entertain the said appeal.

Even this Jaipur bench has also considered the above judgement and thereby directed to delete the lump sum disallowance in the case of Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ 173 taxmann.com 351 ]. Therefore, on being consistent and following the judicial precedent serviced before us we consider ground no. 4 raised by the assessee.

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

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

Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10/09/2025 & 695/JP/2025 Radhakishan Beniwal *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Radhakishan Beniwal, Nagaur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 694 & 695/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत