DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 288/JPR/2023
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2020-21
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFWPM4366E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &

Ms. Ruchika sogani, Adv.
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing

:08/01/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025

vkns'k@ORDER

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue aggrieved from the orders of theLd.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 16.03.2023 [ herein after referred as ld. “CIT(E)/NFAC”] for the assessment year 2020-21, which in 2
DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena turn arise from the order dated 29.09.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961 [hereinafter referred as “Act” ] by the AO.
2. The Revenue has marched this appeal on the following grounds:-
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) NFAC was justified in deleting the addition of income generated through undisclosed source of Rs. 53,37,390/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) NFAC was justified in deleting the addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 84,285/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) NFAC was justified in deleting the addition of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,31,88,312/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.”

I have gone through the submission of the appellant and assessment order.
The ground wise adjudication of the appeal is as under.

3
DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena facilities l.e. (Rs.35,83,000+ Rs.17,54,390). Each of such addition is dealt with as under 1.2). In case of addition of Rs.35,83,000/- the learned AO contested that the underlined agriculture land claimed by the appellant was not belong to him but was belonging to someone else and therefore, in absence of ownership of agriculture land, the income can not be treated as agriculture income and therefore shall be treated as unexplained cash credit as per section 68 of the IT Act.

4
Income of Rs. 17,54,390/- the same is adjudicated as under:

5
2.2). The learned AO on ad-hoc basis added Rs. 84,285/- but the learned AO has not provided explanation for the same. In absence of justified explanation by the learned AO, the addition carried out by him deleted.

6
Nimbus (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITA Nos. 929 & 930/Del/2019

The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed before the Ld AO. Accordingly, all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 of the Act i.e., the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction were placed before the Ld AO and the onus shifted to the Ld AO to disprove the materials placed before him. Without doing so, the addition made by the Ld AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified.

In the case of Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal.), the Calcutta High Court held that it is necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a cash credit in his books of account.
[2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP) that where the assessee-firm had satisfactorily explained the credits standing in the name of its partners, the responsibility of the assessee stands discharged. Once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the responsibility of the assessee-firm Is over. The assessee-firm cannot ask that person who makes investment whether the money invested is properly taxed or not. If that person owns the entry, then the burden of the assessee- firm is discharged. It is open to the Assessing Officer to undertake further investigation with regard to that individual who has deposited the amount.

Having established the nature of amount credited (i.e on account of loan)
Provisions of section 68 are evaluated and reproduced here under –
"Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the Income of the assessee of that previous year..."

a) In order to invoke section 68, the most essential aspect is that the tax payer do not offer any explanation towards source and nature of such cash credit.

b)Any entry in books of account is regarded as genuine if the Identity, genuineness of transaction and Creditworthiness of the lender can be proven. The appellant has filed all the necessary documents of the lenders to prove the genuineness.

c) In view of the above findings and judicial pronouncements I am of the considerate view that once the nature of transaction is established, provisions of section 68 shall not be invoked. In the underlined case the loans taken by appellant are repaid as well therefore, there is no net credit to the books of the appellant. Therefore, the addition made by the learned
AO for Rs2,31,88,312/- is deleted.

8
3.6). Accordingly ground 3to 5 of appellant are allowed.”

Additional Ground of Appeal
During the course of hearing on 10th August, 2023 Department filed following additional ground of appeal:

“Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A)
NFAC was justified in admitting Additional evidence without referring the same to the Assessing Officer under Rule-46A”
Before us the ld. DR filed additional ground and requested the same to be admitted. In this regard the ld. DR submitted before us that since the issue raked up in the additional ground is legal in nature the same deserves to be admitted. We concur with the submission of the ld. DR and admit such ground being legal in nature.
First, we take up the additional ground for adjudication.
It is noted that assessee during the course of hearing before NFAC had filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income
Tax Rules, 1962. Following additional evidences were submitted before NFAC:
1. Prayer under Rule 46A

 ITAT Chandigarh Bench “A” {Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v
Genex Industries Ltd [2019] 109 taxmann.com 402 (Chandigarh- Trib)}.

 ITAT Mumbai Bench “K” {Assistant Commissioner of Income tax v Ciron
Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 370 (Mumbai-
Trib)}.

 ITAT Delhi Bench “F” {Income tax Officer, Ward- 36 (3), New Delhi v
Pardeepa Rani [2016] 73 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi- Tib)}.

Ld. DR vehemently argued that the order of NFAC, in this regard, is bad in law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the action of NFAC and placed on record the following written submission:

“1. Revenue has not taken any ground in its appeal objecting any aspect of additional evidences filed before ld. CIT-(A)/NFAC by the assessee.

10
2. The objection raised by ld. D/R were not raised during the course of making submissions for his appeal. The issue is raised only during the course of rejoinder by the appellant department.

i)
Supplementary deed ii)
Copy of decision of Board of Revenue of Rajasthan, Ajmer

 CIT vs Poddar Swadesh Udyog (P.) Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati)

11
[Para7] It would appear from above that the Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) has the powers to make such further enquiry as he thinks fit or, alternately, he may require the Assessing Officer to make such further enquiry and to report the result of the same to him. It is clear from the above provision that in exercise of powers under this section, the Commissioner is also entitled to admit additional evidence which he may think necessary for facilitating further enquiry. The powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) are undoubtedly very wide. Even otherwise, the powers of a statutory appellate authority are co-terminus with the powers of the authorities at the first instance. There cannot be any dispute to this principle of law.
[Para 8] Rule 46A provides for production of additional evidence before the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). It would appear from clauses (b) and (c ) of sub-rule (1) of rule 46A that the appellate authority is empowered to allow the assessee to produce additional evidence where the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence. In the instant case, the assessee had submitted that he had to go to Bombay to attend his wife who had met with an accident for which he could not produce the documents. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal appear to have accepted this contention. Sub-rule (3) puts restrictions on the appellate authority from taking into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) without giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence and/or to produce any evidence, etc. In the instant case, admittedly, the Assessing Officer was not given any opportunity as provided in sub-rule (3). From that point of view, there appears to be an irregularity in the matter. But the provision in sub-rule (4) permits the appellate authority to direct the production of any document and/or to examine any witness to enable them to dispose of the appeal. For this irregularity, it would not be in aid of justice to refer the matter back to the Assessing Officer again since both the Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal rendered concurrent findings of fact.

 ITO vs Jitendra Mehra [1995] 53 ITD 396

12
[Para7]The Hon’ble High Court held that there was no doubt that both the sides should be given fair opportunity of being heard but when question of date of birth is involved and when parents have given evidence supported by records of municipality, it becomes difficult to imagine what ITO could have done to rebut this evidence. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that notice of hearing from the Appellate Tribunal must have gone to the ITO and he was represented before the Appellate Tribunal. It was, therefore, open to the ITO to bring the necessary facts before the Appellate Tribunal at the time of hearing of second appeal. The court then referred to provision of sub-section (4) of section 250 empowering the AAC to make further enquiry himself or direct the ITO to make further enquiry and make a report. The AAC made enquiry himself in the sense that he took the evidence. So, the question of remanding the case to the ITO did not really arise because there was a choice of procedure and the two procedures could not be mixed up, i.e., evidence could not be taken by the AAC and then decision recorded by the ITO. Assuming for the argument sake that the AAC came to the view that further opportunity was to be given to the income Tax Officer and he remanded the case, it was still to be shown as to what were the facts that ITO could have brought out having bearing on this case. The Hon’ble High
Court, on the facts and circumstances of the case, held that Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the AAC to the extent that it remanded the case back to the ITO. Their Lordships in the decision, observed that in some cases it might be difficult to insist on the AAC deciding the case on new facts himself and sit might be necessary that there should be remand order to the ITO. In complex cases and where new facts arise, it is better that the ITO should deal with the same and, if possible, find some rebutting material. But in case of the type before the High Court, i.e., where question of date of birth, which was a personal matter, was involved, certificate of the Municipal Committee plus affidavit of father should be sufficient.
We see that facts and principle laid down in case of Anupam Fashion Palace
(supra) are applicable to the facts of the case before us it is not correct that in every case, the first appellate authority should provide opportunity to the ITO to examine any evidence produced by the assessee in the appellate

13
DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena proceeding and obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer. There is ample power and juri iction with first appellate authority to take evidence necessary for disposal of appeal. However, in complex cases and where new material is placed in appeal, an opportunity to the ITO to find rebutting material should be provided in terms of rule 46A of Income-tax Rules.

In view of the above the objections raised by ld. D/R regarding compliance to Rule 46A deserves to be rejected.”
We have heard both the parties at length. Gone through the material placed on record, the prayer for additional evidences moved before NFAC and the case laws relied upon by both the parties. It is undisputed that NFAC did not afford any opportunity to the Assessing Officer by sending these additional evidences to him for his remand report thereon. Rule 46A(3) provides as under:

“(3) The [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity—
(a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness

14
DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena produced by the appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant.”

The action of NFAC not confronting the additional evidences to Assessing Officer is a gross violation of the above Rule. We note that the additional evidences relate to Ground No. 1 of the departmental appeal and that too with reference to relief amounting to Rs. 35,83,000/-. In the interest of justice we allow this ground of appeal. Its impact on the main ground raised by the Department would be taken care while adjudicating the specific ground.

16
Order hence, the Order of Ld CIT (A) has been passed after taking into account all the facts presented by assessee in his paperbook. Hence, para 5 of the assessee's submission dated 01.08.2023 stands incorrect.
n) Case law ITO v JitendraMehra [1995] 53 ITD 396 cited by the assesse is also distinguishable on facts. The Hon'ble bench has followed the ratio that in complex cases, the additional evidence needs to be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer In the instant case, the AO has proved the entire transaction
As a colourable device, hence the additional evidence warranted the scrutiny of the AO o) Para 9 of the assessee submission dated 01.08.2023: Refer the case laws cited in para 2(g) espHigh Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax o. Manish
3. Ground of Appeal: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Lil CIT (A) justified in deleting the addition of income generated through undisclosed sources of Rs.53,37,390/- by the AQ u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961
A. Agriculture income of Rs. 35,83,000/-:
a) The ownership of Ratanpura land was not in the name of the assessee during
FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 as the name of Sh. Rajkumar and Smt. Kavita is still mentioned in the Girdavari Report of the said land.
 The assessee could not bring the renewed document in this regard during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings.
b) The discrepancy in payment schedule of the said land as per registered deed vis-a- vis ledger in the books of the assessee (as brought out by the Assessing
Officer on page number 3-6 of the Assessment Order dated 29.09.2022) was not taken into cognizance by the CIT (A). The assessee failed to produce the bank statement substantiating honouring of post-dated cheques amounting to Rs. 60
lakhs but instead produced copy of ledger of Sh. Rajkumar and Smt. Kavita indicating that/ Rs.20 lakhs out of the above said Rs. 60 lakhs was paid in cash.
 The assessee could not produce any evidence of such cash payment during the course of assessment proceedings. The alleged supplementary deed has never been produced before the Assessing Officer to test its genuineness.
c) The income of Rs. 35,83,000/- is supposed to have arisen out of lease rent from M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust and the Trust has allegedly used the said land for the purpose of animal fodder production.
 In this regard, the Girdavari report of the said land for the referred period
(as submitted by the Verification Unit during the course of assessment proceedings) mention cultivation of crops namely bajra, gwaar, groundnut. wheat, matar and rajmaa. These crops are not animal fodder crops as "claimed in the lease deed.
 The Trust could not produce any evidence whatsoever which could prove that the said land was used by the trust for animal fodder production.
 Further, the said trust has not claimed any expenditure and has not aecounted for such cultivation in its books of account for animal fodder production during the said period.

18
 Farther, the confirmations submitted as additional evidences were never produced before the Assessing Officer.
d) In view of above, the assessee could not explain the sum of Rs. 35,83,000/- credited in the books as required u/s 68 of the Act. The nature of such transactions remains unproved.
e) The sale deed and the subsequent lease deed are just the colour provided by the assessee to give legitimacy to the said credited amount in its books.
Reliance is place on the judgements:
 Sumatı Dayal v Commissioner of Income tax/1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC)
 McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148/22
Taxman 11 (SC)
B. Addition of Rs. 17,14,830/- on account of sale of agricultural produce:
The assessee showed income of Rs. 11,92,776/- from sale of agricultural produce and Rs. 5,61,614/-on account of sale of vegetables during the year.
a) Income of Rs 11,92,776/- from sale of agricultural produce:-
 The assessee stated that he has sold agricultural produce in KrishiUpajMandiSamiti, Gangapur City amounting to Rs. 11,92,776/- and provided 4 sale bills, the details of Mandi Bills is as under.
Rs. 3,92,858/-through Mandi Samiti Bill dated 14.06.2019
Rs. 2,58,771/-through Mandi Samiti Bill dated 15.06.2019
Rs. 4,32,683/-through Mandi Samiti Bill dated 17.06.2019
Rs. 1,08,464/-through Mandi Samiti Bill dated 12.11.2019
 On perusal of ledger account of agricultural income for the year it is found that the assessee received in cash of Rs 6,70,078/-on 08.04.2019 which includes sale of vegetables and amount of Rs. 1,08,464/- as per Mandi
Samiti Bill dated 12.11.2019. A discrepancy was flagged by the AO that the Mandi Bill of Rs 1,08,464/ is dated 12.11.2019 however, the cash receipt date in the ledger is 08.04.2019. The revised cash book of the assessee also mention the date of receipt as on 08.04.2019. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to take cognizance of the stated discrepancy.
 With regard to the payment received from BhonriLalMool Chand Jain, on perusal of Union Bank statement, it is found that the assessee received Rs.
10 Lakhs from BhonriLalMool Chand Jain on 18.06.2019 and on the same date le 18.06.2019 the same amount ie. 10 lakhs is cash withdrawn. This is a 19
 Further, the sale bill provided by BhonriLalMool Chand Jain as confirmationis undated.
 Further, Mandi Samiti Bill dated 12.11.2019 Rs. 1,08,464/- though mentions the name of BhonriLalMool Chand Jain (as is the case in rest of the Bills), but does not find mention in the confirmation of the said person.
 The referred Mandi Samiti Bills appear to have been written by the same person on the same day (same handwriting). The Hon'ble Bench can order the forensic analysis of the said documents.
Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd (2013) taxmann.com 292 (Delhi)
(para 12... No attempt was made by the Tribunal to scratch the surface and probe the documentary evidence in some depth....)
 The assessee submitted the cash book twice viz. original and revised one
(copy enclosed) and both are different from each other. The agricultural income in the cash book (vide assesse reply dated 08.08.2022) has been shown as Rs.4,50,000/- on 08.04.2022 whereas, in revised cash book (vide assesse reply dated 19.09.2022), the agricultural income has been disclosed at Rs. 6,70,078/-
 Further the agriculture ledger account has also been submitted twice (copy enclosed).
 In the original cash book dated 08.08.2022, the agricultural expenses have not been disclosed, whereas the agricultural expenses amounting to Rs.39,560/- (dated 08.04.2022) appeared in the revised cash book.
 It is seen that the details of other land owned by his family members are not provided by the assessee. Further activities of agriculture on that land has also not been provided despite being asked by the AO.
 Regarding 6.25 acre of land shown in ITR, the assessee has not given any reply and not furnished any documentary evidence even after being asked about the same.
b) Income of Rs. 5,61,614/- on account of sale of vegetables:-

20
 The assessee stated that he earned Rs. 5,61,614/- from the sale of vegetables in the open market during the year. Further on perusal of Ledger account of agricultural income for the year it is found that on 08.04.2019 there is cash receipts of Rs. 6,70,078/ which presumably contains the amount of Rs.
5,61,614/- of sale of vegetables. The assessee could not provide the details of vegetable cultivation season wise and expenses incurred for the said purpose during the year.
 The assessee was unable to prove that why the agricultural produce of the whole year was sold at the start of the year ie. on 08.04.2019. The CIT (A) failed to discuss about it at all. The AO has rightly added the amount of Rs.
5,61,614/-u/s 68 as the assesse has not produces any evidence to prove that the income had arisen out of sale of vegetables.
 The first cash book submitted by the assessee on 08.08.2022, the agricultural income is shown at Rs. 4,50,000/-only.
4) Ground of Appeal "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.
CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,31, 88, 312/- by the AO u/s 68 of the L.T.Act, 1961"
A. Credit amounting to Rs. 1.5 crores received by the assessee from M/s Apollo
Animal Medical Group Trust (where the assessee himself is a managing trustee):
a) Credit of Rs. 1 Core:
 The assessee submitted that he has received Rs 1 crore from Apollo Animal
Medical Group Trust on 04.10.2019 to deposit the same as affiliation fee to the University of Animal science, Bikaner. Further he submitted that due to any unavoidable circumstances, the same was deposited on 04.08.2020 (after
10 months of the receipt of the amount).
 The assesse failed to provide proof of such payment on 04.08.2020, when inquired by the AO.
 The assesse also did not provide any evidence as to when the payment of alleged "affiliation fee" became due, and why the payment was allegedly paid on 04.08.2022
 Further, the Trust has not shown the assessee in the schedule "Loans and advances" of the consolidated Balance Sheet filed in reply to the show cause notice. The total amount of the schedule as on 31.03.2020 is Rs. 4,35,717/

21
 On perusal of Union Bank of India statement for F.Y. 2019-20 provided by the assessee in its submission on 07.09.2022 (and paperbook submission dated 01.08.2023 page number 60), it is found that the assessee has received
Rs 1 crore from Apollo Medical Trust on 04.10.2019 with the narration entry (Amount received back from Apollo College against advances given earlier in which I am a managing trustee). Further the same amount ie. 1
Crore is reflected to be paid to Rajni Sharma (Suryakantļi) on 04.10.2019
with the narration (Amount repaid to Rajni Sharma against amount taken on 22.03.2018)
 The assessee's statement is self-contradictory as the narration of money received on 04.10.2019 from Apollo Medical College shows that the amount received of Ra 1 Crore was against advance given earlier to Apollo College and the same was handed over to a third person on the same day. The assessee has failed to provide a creditworthy explanation regarding the credit of Rs.1 crore in its books dated 04.10.2019.  The nature of the transaction could not be proved by the assessee.
 Rupal Jain vs Commissioner of Income tax (2023) 152 taxmann.com 346
(SC)
 MrsRupal Jain vs Commissioner of Income tax (2023) 152 taxmann.com
345 (Allahabad)
 The CIT (A) in his order has failed to discuss the issue at all and has placed his reliance blindly on six supporting documents (viz. ITR Copies, computation of income, financial statements, loan confirmation statement, bank statement depicting amount of loan, PAN Card and address) across the board in all 5 cases of cash credits totaling to Rs. 2,31,88,312/- in a generalized manner and deleted the addition without appreciating the facts of the case, which is perverse and bad in law. The case laws relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) are distinguishable on facts.
 Therefore it is clear that the theory of money kept by the Trust as advance for affiliation fee with the assessee is a concocted strory and the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast by section 68 of the Act to explain the credit in its books of account and the AO has rightly made the addition u/s 68 of the act.

22
DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena b) Credit of Rs. 50 Lakhs:
 The assessee failed to provide any explanation regarding Rs 50 lakh receipt from Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust on 09.10.2019.  On perusal of bank statement of the assessee (Union Bank of India) provided by the assessee during the course of assessment it is seen that that the assessee has received Rs. 50 lakh on 09.10.2019 from Apollo Medical Trust with the narration entry (amount received back from Apollo College against advance given earlier in which I am a managing trustee). Further on the same date ie. 09.10 2019, the same amount ie. 50 lakh is seen to have been paid to Rajni Sharma (Suryakantļi) with the narration entry (amount repaid to Rajni Sharma against amount taken on 12.12.2018). The same is evident from the assessee'spaperbook submission dated 01.08.2023 page number 60.  The assessee has failed to provide any explanation regarding the credit of Rs. 50 lakhs in its books of account on 09.10.2019 as per the requirements of section 68 of the Act.
 The deletion of this addition by the CIT (A) without any discussion of the issue in his Appeal Order is perverse and bad in law.
 The nature of the transaction could not be proved by the assessee.
 Rupal Jain vs Commissioner of Income tax (2023) 152 taxmann.com 346
(SC)
 MrsRupal Jain vs Commissioner of Income tax (2023) 152 taxmann.com
345 (Allahabad)
B. The Assessing Officer has made the remaining additions u/s 68 of the Act citing reasons for each addition, which are different from each other. The Order of Assessing Officer is heavily relied upon for the remaining issues. Some glaring mistakes in the Order of CIT (A) are being highlighted, as under:
 The CIT (A) has summarily deleted the additions by stating that the assesse has submitted six documents in each case, which is factually incorrect. For instance:
 The assessee could not submit ant documentary evidence in support of credit of Rs.4,00,000/- from Mr. Prabhu Dayal in his books (cash credit of Rs.
4,00,000/-)

23
 In the case of JSB Evergreen Sweets and Snacks (credit of Rs. 23,50,000/-); the assessee has submitted copy of confirmation and PAN card only.
 The Order of CIT (A) is perverse bad in law as he has deleted the additions without appreciating the facts of the individual case. The case laws relied upon by the Ld. CIT (A) are distinguishable on facts.
5) Ground of Appeal: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.
CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of unexplained expenditures of Rs.84,285/-by the AO u/s 69C of the 1.T.Act, 1961"
 The CIT (A) has deleted the addition without appreciating the facts stated by the Assessing Officer in the relevant paragraphs of the assessment order, which are heavily relied upon.
6) The points stated above are to add emphasis to the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order are strongly relied upon in respect of all grounds of appeal raised in the Form
36 (and thereon). The CIT (A) has deleted the additions without taking cognizance of the issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order.
7) The assessee has submitted 3 case laws namely Rajendra Prakashus Babita
Gupta and Ors. (High Court of Allahabad), VidhyadharvsManikrao and Ors.
(Supreme Court), DahibenosArvinbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Supreme Court) before the Hon'ble bench.
 The referred civil suits do not involve the matters of Income tax Act, which is a separate statuette, hence are not applicable in the instant case.
 In case the stated case laws are to be relied upon as sacrosanct, then the judicial pronouncements Sumati Dayal v Commissioner of Income tax[1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC) and McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax
Officer [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11 (SC) and the PBPT Act will have no meaning.
8) In view of above, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and needs to be set aside and the additions made by the AO (on all grounds) be restored.”

24
1. Assessee's submission dated 04.03.2022 during the course of assessment proceeding
1-51
2. Assessee's submission dated 08.08.2022 during the course of assessment proceeding
52-67
3. Assessee's submission dated 07.09.2022 during the course of assessment proceeding
68-96
4. Assessee's submission dated 19.09.2022 during the course of assessment proceeding
97-142
5. Assessee's submission dated 27.09.2022 during the course of assessment proceeding
143-247

Case laws relied upon 6. High Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax v. Manish
Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 204 Taxman 106 (Delhi)
248-261
7. High Court of Kerala {Commissioner of Income tax, Trichur v.
E.D.Benny [2015] 62 taxmann.com 302 (Kerala)}.
262-271
8. High Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax v. United
Tower (I) (P.) Ltd. [2007] 296 ITR 106 (Delhi)).
272-273
9. High Court of Bombay {Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v.
Commissioner of Income tax [1998] 100 Taxman 404
(Bombay)}.
274-278
10. ITAT Chandigarh Bench "A" {Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax v Genex Industries Ltd [2019] 109 taxmann.com 402
(Chandigarh - Trib)).
279-286
11. ITAT Mumbai Bench "K" {Assistant Commissioner of Income tax v Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99
taxmann.com 370 (Mumbai- Trib)}.
287-299
12. ITAT Delhi Bench "F" {Income tax Officer, Ward-36 (3), New
Delhi v Pardeepa Rani [2016] 73 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi-
Trib)).
299-305
13. Supreme Court of India {Commissioner of Income tax v.
McMillan & Co. [1958] 33 ITR 182 (SC)).
306-332
14. Sumati Dayal v Commissioner of Income tax[1995] 80 Taxman
89 (SC)
333-338
15. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154
ITR 148/22 Taxman 11 (SC)
339-354
16. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nipun Builders & Developers 355-362

25
(P.) Ltd [2013] 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi)
17. Yadu hari Dalmia v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1980] 4
Taxman 525 (Delhi)
363-369
18. Rupal jain v. Commissioner of Income-tax[2023] 152
taxmann.com 346 (SC)
370
19. Mrs. Rupal Jainv.Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 152
taxmann.com 345 (Allahabad)
371-372

26
7. It is submitted that out of the three additional evidences, following additional evidences were part of government/public record.
i) Supplementary deed ii) Copy of decision of Board of Revenue of Rajasthan, Ajmer
8. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that additional evidence can be accepted by Id. CIT-(A)/NFAC even without remand report from Assessing
Officer.
In view of provisions of section 250(4) and Rule 46A(4) and the fact of CIT-(A) powers being co-terminus with that of assessing officer. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements:
 CIT vs Poddar Swadesh Udyog (P.) Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati)
[Para7] It would appear from above that the Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) has the powers to make such further enquiry as he thinks fit or, alternately, he may require the Assessing Officer to make such further enquiry and to report the result of the same to him. It is clear from the above provision that in exercise of powers under this section, the Commissioner is also entitled to admit additional evidence which he may think necessary for facilitating further enquiry.
The powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) are undoubtedly very wide. Even otherwise, the powers of a statutory appellate authority are co-terminus with the powers of the authorities at the first instance. There cannot be any dispute to this principle of law.
[Para 81 Rule 46A provides for production of additional evidence before the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). It would appear from clauses
(b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 46A that the appellate authority is empowered to allow the assessee to produce additional evidence where the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence. In the instant case, the assessee

27
DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena had submitted that he had to go to Bombay to attend his wife who had met with an accident for which he could not produce the documents. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal appear to have accepted this contention. Sub-rule (3) puts restrictions on the appellate authority from taking into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) without giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence and/or to produce any evidence, etc. In the instant case, admittedly, the Assessing Officer was not given any opportunity as provided in sub-rule (3). From that point of view, there appears to be an irregularity in the matter. But the provision in sub-rule (4) permits the appellate authority to direct the production of any document and/or to examine any witness to enable them to dispose of the appeal. For this irregularity, it would not be in aid of justice to refer the matter back to the Assessing Officer again since both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal rendered concurrent findings of fact. Cenclosed]
ITO vs Jitendra Mehra [1995] 53 ITD 396
[Para7] The Hon'ble High Court held that there was no doubt that both the sides should be given fair opportunity of being heard but when question of date of birth is involved and when parents have given evidence supported by records of municipality, it becomes difficult to imagine what ITO could have done to rebut this evidence. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that notice of hearing from the Appellate Tribunal must have gone to the ITO and he was represented before the Appellate Tribunal it was, therefore, open to the ITO to bring the necessary facts before the Appellate Tribunal at the time of hearing of second appeal. The court then referred to provision of sub-section (4) of section 250 empowering the AAC to make further enquiry himself or direct the ITO to make further enquiry and make a report. The AAC made enquiry himself in the sense that he took the evidence. So the question of remanding the case to the ITO did not really arise because there was a choice of procedure and the two procedures could not be mixed up, re evidence could not be taken by the AAC and then decision recorded by the ITO Assuming for the argument sake that the AAC came to the view that further opportunity was to be given to the income Tax Officer and he remanded the case, it was still to be shown as to what were the facts that ITO could have brought out having bearing on this case. The Hon'ble High Court, on the facts and 28
However, in complex cases and where new material is placed in appeal, an opportunity to the ITO to find rebutting material should be provided in terms of rule 46A of Income-tax Rules. [enclosed]
9. The case laws relied by Id. D/R are not relevant to the facts of the present case.
In all the cases, relied upon Id. D/R, the additional evidences have been admitted.
Issue of compliance of Rule 46A arises when additional evidences have been admitted and decision is based on such evidences which were not before the id AO.
These decisions do not deal with the aspect of further evidences which is the issue in the present appeal.
In view of the above the objections raised by Id. D/R regarding compliance to Rule
46A deserves to be rejected.”
7. To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee and has relied upon the following evidences in support of the contentions so raised:-
1-2
1.2 Supplementary deed evidencing the revised details of payment for purchasing agriculture land
3-11
1.3. Order of Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the favour of the assessee evidencing the titular ownership of the agriculture land by the assessee
12-23
1.4. Confirmations, proof of land holding and Naksha of Land from Khastkar of Neighboring Lands evidencing that the agriculture land was owned by the assessee and the same was leased to Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine and was used for growing fodder
24-30
2. Paper Book before ld. CIT(A)

30
116-118
2.14 Dcouments of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust i. Name, Address, PAN and ITR
119
ii. Computation of Total Income
120,121
iii. Audited Financial Statements
122-137
iv. Confirmation of loan
138
2.15. Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC).
139-143
2.16. Copy of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. (2009) 181 Taxman 5
(Delhi)

144-146
2.17. Copy of decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, 2022

147,148
2.18. Copy of decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of RAS Concepts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 95
ITR 46, 2022

149-154

i.
Rs. 35,83,000/- related to Ratanpura Land leased out to Apollo Animal
Medical College for growing animal fodder.

ii.
Rs. 17,54,390/- Karauli Land on which agriculture income has been declared in past also.

31
The assessee made following submissions before NFAC which are extracted from NFAC Order pages 4 to 13. “1. The addition was made in two parts being as follows:
(i)Addition of Rs. 35,83,000/-
(ii)Addition of Rs. 17,54,390/-
2. Submissions for addition of Rs. 35,83,000/-
2.1. The assessee through conveyance deed dated 21-05-2018 purchased an agricultural land for Rs. 70,00,000/- in village Ratanpura from MrRajkumar and Mrs. Kavita [PB –Conveyance Deed: Pages 1-12].
2.2. The assessee, prior to the date of registry, paid Rs. 2,00,000/- through banking channel and Rs. 800,000/- in cash. The assessee then issued 6 post-dated cheques of Rs. 10,00,000/- each for making the balance payment (Rs. 70,00,000 – 2,00,000
– 8,00,000). Accordingly, the conveyance deed was registered [PB Pages 1-12].
2.3. However, because of non-availability of funds in the bank account two cheques, being cheque no. 026291 dated 29-07-2018 amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn in favour of Rajkumar and cheque no. 026293 dated 31-07-2018 amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn in favour of Kavita, were taken back. Rs. 20,00,000 were 32
DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena paid in cash to Rajkumar (Rs. 10,00,000/-) and Kavita (10,00,000/-).
Supplementary Deed evidencing the change in modes of payment was executed.
The said Supplementary Deed is placed as an additional evidence[AE –
Supplementary Deed: Pages 1-9]. Prayer for the same has been moved separately.
2.4. During the assessment proceedings the assessee placed on record copy of Conveyance Deed [PB Pages 1-12] to prove his ownership in the land. On comparison of the same with the bank book and cash book. Certain differences were noticed by ld. AO. Accordingly, ld. AO doubted the validity of the ownership of land.
2.5. It is submitted that the differences notices by ld. AO were on account of the same transactions for which Supplementary Deed was executed. Hence, the validity and sanctity of the Sale Deed dated 21-05-2018 read along with Supplementary Deed 04-12-2019 is duly proved. Now there can remain no doubt with regards to the ownership of the said agricultural land situated in village
Ratanpura.
2.6. It is further submitted that the land purchased by the assessee was a disputed land. The assessee, before ld. AO, duly placed on record the Land Status from Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan dated 18-02- 2022 [PB – Land status: Pages
13-18]. To further clarify, the Copy of decision of Board of Revenue for Rajasthan,
Ajmer dated 24-11-2020 wherein it was held that the land has to be registered in the name of the assessee is also submitted as additional evidence [AE – Copy of Court Order: Pages 10-21]. Prayer for the same has been moved separately.. The assessee also submitted before ld. AO copy of letter of Tehsildaar, dated 20-05-
2022, requesting the Collector- Jaipur, for further directions as the Hon’ble Court directed that the land has to be registered in the name of the assessee. Hence, in light of the decision of Hon’ble Court also the land was owned by the assessee and not by Rajkumar and Kavita.
2.7. Ld. AO observed that in the revenue records the land was not transferred in the favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the ownership of land was questioned by ld. AO. In this regard it is submitted that because of the dispute, the land could not be registered in the name of the assessee. The assesse is making efforts to get his

33
2.9. The assessee during the assessment proceedings placed on record ledger confirmation of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. [PB Page 19 ]
2.10. It is submitted that notice u/s 133(6) was issued to Apollo Animal Medical
Group Trust. In response to the said notice Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust duly confirmed the fact of taking land on lease and the payment of lease rentals.
Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust further submitted that it used the land for growing fodder so as to feed the animals of its hospital. [PB – 133(6) and response by Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust]
2.11. Hence, because of this reason also ownership of the land cannot be doubted.
Further, the transaction of lease as well as receipt of Rs. 35,83,000/- cannot be doubted as both receiver as well as the payer have confirmed the said fact.
2.12. Ld. AO without disputing the fact of lease and without disputing the amount of lease rentals considered the income claimed exempt by the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. Ld. AO based his findings solely on report of Verification Unit. As per the report the land was belonging to Kavita and Rajkumar and instead of fodder a few crops were grown.
2.13. It is submitted that, as per the assessment order, reference was made to Verification Unit. However, the same is unsubstantiated as the assessee has not been provided with the copy of such reference letter as well as the report of Verification Unit. Further, at page 5 of the assessment order it has been 34
DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena mentioned that the report of Sub