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

1.) Ground 1: ADDITION OF RS. 53,37,390/- U/S 68 TREATING AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INCOME GENERATED THROUGH UNDISCLOSED SOURCES.

1.1). The learned AO had carried addition of Rs.53,37,390/- on account of agriculture in come shown by the appellant out of its two agriculture

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.

1.3). The appellant responded that the underlined land was purchased by him from earlier owner but due to some procedural aspects it was not transferred in land revenue department's records in his name. The appellant also submitted registered sale deed dated 21-05-2018 read along with Supplementary Deed 04-12-2019 to the learned AO which is conclusive evidence of ownership. The appellant also submitted that after purchasing of land it was given to Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust on lease basis for carrying out agricultural activities. The transactions were carried out on the said landcanentire transaction took place through banking channel, M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust also confirmed said fact to learned AO against his notice U/s 133(6).

1.4). The learned AO did not provide cogent reason for not accepting the registered sale deed and merely upheld that the underlined land is not owned by the appellant by looking at records of land revenue department and therefore he upheld that the underlined income is not agricultural Income but from disclosed sources.

1.5). Having regard to submission of the appellant and verification of documents submitted by the appellant it is evident that the appellant has discharge his onus to explain the nature of transaction and substantiate the same with documentary evidences. In such situation, provisions of section 68 shall not apply. Therefore the addition made by the learned AO for sum of Rs.35,83,000/- is deleted.

1.6). The learned AO carried out another addition on account of agriculture Income of Rs. 17,54,390/- the same is adjudicated as under:

1.7). The learned AO raised questions on genuineness of the Income merely upon realising that expenses are only to the tune of 2.25% of revenue. He Ignored the fact that appellant is farmer himself and would be knowing techniques of carrying out farming activity very well. The learned AO contested that the appellant has not recorded the revenue properly in books of accounts and there is change in trading account submitted by the appellant.

1.8). The appellant explained the modus operandi of maintaining books of accounts by submitting bills raised by him for sale of his goods for sum of Rs.11.92 lakhs. The learned AO did not accept the same and also did not provide cogent reason for not accepting the cash vouchers raised by the appellant while selling goods in the open market.

1.9). I have gone through the submission of the appellant. The appellant has also demonstrated that his agriculture income during AY 2018-19 to AY 2022- 23 was in the range of Rs.13.86 lakhs to Rs.45 lakhs. Having regards to cash vouchers submitted by the appellant, the correctness of Income source is stablished and in absence on any specific finding of learned AO on the same, It shall not be rejected. Therefore, I am of the considerate view that stand taken by learned AO is not correct and addition made by learned AO for sum of Rs. 17,54,390/- is deleted. TAX DEPAR

1.10). Accordingly, the ground 1 of the appeal of the appellant is allowed.

2.) Ground 2: ADDITION OF RS. 84,312/-U/S 69C

2.1). The learned AO contested that the there were 2 receipt of payments of Rs. 14,285/- and Rs.1,09,234/- by a common cheque No. 047721 paid to Baja Finserve but the same was not reflecting in appellant's bank account.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena Upon enquiry, the appellant mentioned that the underlined cheque was issued preceding year but the same got bounced and same was paid vide another cheque.

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.

2.3). Accordingly, the ground 2 of the appellant is allowed.

3. Ground 3 to 5: unsecured loan of Rs.2,31,88,312/-

3.1.) The appellant had taken loan/ advances from following parties: Name of party Amount (Rs.) Sanjay Traders 40,00,000/- JSB Evergreen Sweets & Snacks 23,50,000/- Prabhu Dayal 4,00,000/- Bhonri Lal Mool Chand Jain 10,84,312/- Apollo Animal Medical Group 1,53,54,000/- Trust Total 2,31,88,312/-

3.2). The learned AO for want of testing the genuineness of the transactions called for details from appellant. In response to the same the learned AO recorded his dissatisfaction and treated the loans as unexplained cash credit.

3.3). I have gone through the supporting documents pertaining to lenders as submitted by the appellant comprising of following a) ITR copies b) Computation of total income

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena c) Financial statements d)Loan confirmation Statement e) Bank statement depicting amount of loan f)PAN card and address 3.4). The learned AO has merely mentioned that creditworthiness of above parties is not proven and therefore he treated loans as unexplained cash credit.

3.5). In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the primary onus to prove genuineness of the loan transaction is discharged by the appellant in the underlined case. The reliance can be placed on following judicial pronouncements.

Nimbus (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) & 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. Such proof Includes proof of the identity of his creditor, the capacity of such creditor to advance the money and lastly the genuineness of the transaction. Only after the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena On the other hand, it was held in the case of CIT v. Metachem Industries [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.

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

3. Order of Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the favour of the assessee evidencing the titular ownership of the agriculture land by the assessee

 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.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 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.

4. Ld. CIT-(A)/NFAC has not given any finding that additional evidences were admitted. This is the reason department has not challenged this aspect in its appeal. Mere submission of additional evidences does not mandate the ld. CIT-(A)/NFAC to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 46A.

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 ld. 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 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

[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

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena proceeding and obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer. There is ample power and jurisdiction 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

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.

4. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO. The ld. DR also filed the written submission vide his letter dated 10.08.2023 issued from the office of ACIT-II, Jaipur which carry following main contents. “The CIT (A) has passed the Appeal Order dated 16.03.2023 without taking into cognizance the following factual discrepancies: 2. Ground of Appeal: Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC uus justified in admitting additional evidence without referring the same to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46-A" a) Please refer to the submission vide office letter no 237 dated 31.07.2023, b) The additional evidences (3) stated therein were not produced before the Assessing officer by the assessee during the course of Assessment proceedings. The assessee has relied upon two more additional evidences during the course of CIT(A) proceedings. c) The same was submitted before the CIT (A) during the appellate proceedings.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena d) The Ld. CIT (A) has not stated any findings regarding the admission of such additional evidences as per Rule 46A (2) of 1.T.Rules, 1962. e) The Ld. CIT(A) has also not remanded the same to the Assessing officer as per Rule 46A (3) of the I.T.Rules, 1962 f) The referred additional evidences played a vital role in the judgement of this case g) Case laws relied upon in this regard are as under:  High Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax v. Manish Build Welt (P.) Ltd. (2011) 204 Taxman 106 (Delhi)) (pstra 24 of the Order...If the view of Tribunal is accepted, it would make Rule 46A otiose...)  High Court of Kerala (Commissioner of Income tax. Trichur v ED. Benny [2015] 62 вехтанn.com 302 (Kerala)) (para 23 of the Order)  High Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax v. United Tower (1)(P.) Ltd. [2007] 296 ITR 106 (Delhi)). (para 5-7 of the Order)  ITAT Chandigarh Bench "A" (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v Genex Industries Ltd [2019] 109 taxmann.com 402 (Chandigarh-Trib)). (para 5.5 of the Order.... The statutory mandate to provide the Assessing Officer opportunity to rebut the evidence is not discretionary. The requirement has been considered to be an indispensable requirement...)  ITAT Mumbai Bench "K" (Assistant Commissioner of Income tax v Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 370 (Mumbai- Trib)) (Para 9 of the Order....Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules is not an empty formality as it contemplate the Ld CIT (A) to record reasons for admitting additional evidences filed by the assesse and then it also contemplate forwarding of these additional evidences by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer for his necessary verifications/ examinations....)  ITAT Delhi Bench "F" (Income tax Officer, Ward- 36 (3), New Delhi Pardeepa Rani (2016) 73 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi- Trib)). (para 6.3 of the Order... Whenever the assesse who is in appeal before him invokes Rule 46A, it is incumbent upon the CIT (A) to comply with the requirements of the Rule strictly....) h) The assessee's submission that ground of appeal has not been filed stands infructuous.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena i) The Ld CIT (A) has categorically mentioned Supplementary Deed (AE) in para 4 of the Appeal Order. The facts stated by the assessee in para 4 of his submission dated 01.08.2023 are incorrect. j) The Ld CIT (A) has produced the entire submission of the assesse in his 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. k) In para 6 of his submission dated 01.08.2023, the assesse has categorized the said evidences as further evidences. There is no such categorization of evidences present in Rule 46A of the LT.Rules, 1962. i) In para 7 of the submission dated 01.08.2023, the assesse has submitted that two (out of three) evidences were part of the government record. The ground has no merit as the Rule 46A is very clear on the admission of additional evidences m) Case law CIT vs Poddar SudeshLidyog (P) Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati) cited by the assesse is distinguishable on facts. In the referred case, the assesse was prevented by a sufficient cause to produce the documents before the AO but no such situation had arisen in the instant case. The assesse was provided eight opportunities to present his case before the AO. 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 Build Well (P) Ltd. (2011) 204 Taxman 106 (Delhi)) In view of the above, the Order of CIT (A) is bad in law as he has violated the provisions of section 46A of the Act. The Order needs to be dismissed or set aside to the file of CIT (A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 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.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena  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 DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena classic modus operandi in which money is being rotated and hence the alleged sale to BhonriLalMool Chand Jain is not found to be genuine  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:-

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena  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/

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena  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.

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/-)

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena  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.”

5. To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. DR for the Revenue and has relied upon the following evidences in support of the contentions so raised:-

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena Sr. Particulars Page No. No.

1. Assessee's submission dated 04.03.2022 during the course of 1-51 assessment proceeding 2. Assessee's submission dated 08.08.2022 during the course of 52-67 assessment proceeding 3. Assessee's submission dated 07.09.2022 during the course of 68-96 assessment proceeding 4. Assessee's submission dated 19.09.2022 during the course of 97-142 assessment proceeding 5. Assessee's submission dated 27.09.2022 during the course of 143-247 assessment proceeding Case laws relied upon 6. High Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax v. Manish 248-261 Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 204 Taxman 106 (Delhi) 7. High Court of Kerala {Commissioner of Income tax, Trichur v. 262-271 E.D.Benny [2015] 62 taxmann.com 302 (Kerala)}.

8. High Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax v. United 272-273 Tower (I) (P.) Ltd. [2007] 296 ITR 106 (Delhi)).

9. High Court of Bombay {Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. 274-278 Commissioner of Income tax [1998] 100 Taxman 404 (Bombay)}.

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

6. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the ld. AR of the assesseerelied upon order of the ld. CIT(A) and also filed following written submission:-

“This has reference to Id. D/R written submissions dated 31.07.2023. Our following submissions may please be considered:

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

2. The objection raised by Id. 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 3. The objection raised for additional evidences relates to Ground No 1 of the departmental appeal that too with reference to relief amounting to Rs 35,83,000 out of the total amount of Ground No 1 of Rs 53,37,390.

4. Ld. CIT-(A)/NFAC has not given any finding that additional evidences were admitted. This is the reason department has not challenged this aspect in its appeal. Mere submission of additional evidences does not mandate the Id. CIT-(A)/NFAC to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 46A.

5. The decision of Id. CIT-(A)/NFAC is not based on any of the additional evidences submitted before him. Ld. CIT-(A)/NFAC has given his decision on the basis of evidences before the Id. AO during assessment proceedings.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 6. The additional evidences were in the nature of further evidences. Further evidences are those evidences which are given in furtherance of the evidences already on record.

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 DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 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, ie, 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 proceeding and obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer. There is ample power and jurisdiction 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. [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:-

S. No. particulars Page No. 1. Additional evidences before ld. CIT(A)

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 1.1 Prayer under Rule 46A 1-2 1.2 Supplementary deed evidencing the revised details of 3-11 payment for purchasing agriculture land 1.3. Order of Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the favour of the 12-23 assessee evidencing the titular ownership of the agriculture land by the assessee 1.4. Confirmations, proof of land holding and Naksha of 24-30 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 2. Paper Book before ld. CIT(A) 2.1 Index 31,32 2.2 Purchase Dee 33-34 2.3 Copy of order of Board of Revenue Rajasthan dated 24- 45-49 11-2020 2.4 ledger confirmation of Apollo college of Veterinary 50 Medicine 2.5 Inspect Report 51 2.6 Sale Bills of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti 52-55 2.7 Bank Statement of assessee showing Rs. 10,00,000/- 56-61 receipt of agriculture sale 2.8 Revised cash book 62-64 2.9. Confirmation from Bhonri Lal Moolchand about 65 agriculture income 2.10. Girdavari Report of lands on which agricultural 66-68 activities were carried out by the assessee 2.11. Account Statements of Bajaj Finserv 69-76 2.12 Documents of Sanjay Traders i. ITR of Sanjay Traders, 77 ii. Computation of Sanjay Traders, 48-80 iii. Audited Financials of Sanjay Traders 81-85 iv. Confirmation of Sanjay Traders, 86 v. PAN Card of Sanjay Agarwal, Proprietor of Sanjay 87 Traders vi. Bank Account State of Sanjay Traders 88-114 2.13 Dcoument of JSB Evergreen i. Confirmation of accounts of JSB Evergreen Sweets and 115

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena Sanacks, ii. bank Statement 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 139-143 Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC). 2.16. Copy of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High in the case of 144-146 Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. (2009) 181 Taxman 5 (Delhi) 2.17. Copy of decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in 147,148 case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, 2022 2.18. Copy of decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the 149-154 case of RAS Concepts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 95 ITR 46, 2022

GROUND NO. 1: Addition of RS. 53,37,390/- under section 68 It is noted that Ground No. 1 has following two components related to agriculture income declared by the assessee in his Return of Income: 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.

During the course of assessment proceedings AO was not satisfied about the income being agriculture income. AO, accordingly, added the said agriculture income invoking the provisions of section 68. Aggrieved with the said addition the assessee preferred appeal before NFAC.

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 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

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena name updated in revenue records. The fact that name has not been updated in the revenue records cannot be the sole reason for holding that the land was not owned by the assessee where all the evidences substantiating the ownership have been already placed on record. Hence, the conclusion of the ld. AO that land was not owned by the assessee is baseless. 2.8. During the year under consideration the assessee had given on lease the said land to Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust for Rs. 35,83,000. Accordingly, the lease rentals earned were treated as an agriculture income and was claimed to be exempt. Complete transaction took place through banking channel. 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 DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena mentioned that the report of Sub Registrar, Tunga Bassi, Jaipur (Tehsildar office) was considered by the Inspector of Verification Unit. Such report of Sub- Registrar is also not provided to the assessee. Hence, whether such report exists or not is not known to the assessee. 2.14. The only document provided to the assessee, along with assessment order, is said to be report of Inspector [PB – Inspector Report: Page 20]. Such report cannot be termed as report and cannot be relied upon because of the following reasons: 1. The report is a printout on plain paper. ii. Details with regards to office, designation, etc are not mentioned. iii.The report is undated. iv.Name of Inspector, his designation under respective Verification Unit is not mentioned. v.It is not mentioned to whom such report was addressed to, just Sir/Madam is mentioned. 2.15. Hence, in absence of evidences, copy of report, copy of letter and after perusal of so called report of the Inspector, the factum of any verification having taken place is highly improbable. 2.16. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that in the last para of the so called report of the Inspector it is mentioned that Sub Registrar Tunga Bassi on 20-09-2022, just provided copy of Girdavari report and Jamabandi and nothing else. From such details, it was noted by the Inspector, that the name of Kashtkar in the Girdavari Report is Rajkumar and Kavita. The name of the owner in the Jamabandi is Rajasthan Govt. Ld. AO, on the basis of the finding of Inspector concluded that even after the sale, the land was still used by Rajkumar and Kavita. In this regard it is reiterated that since the land was in dispute the change of ownership could not be made. Now as per the decision of Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 24-11-2020 the land revenue records are to be modified

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena and name of the assessee is to be mentioned [AE Pages 10-21]. The ownership of the land is also evident from the response of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn. 2.17. Ld. AO after perusing the contents of Girdavari Report observed that the crops grown by Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust were Bajra, Gwaar, Groundnut, Wheat, Matar, etc and not fodder. Accordingly, ld. AO doubted the agriculture income of the assessee and held that the assessee could not prove that he earned agriculture 2.18 2.18 Further, animal fodder is not a designated crop but is a byproduct of main crop. A person is required to grow crop in order to get animal income by leasing out agriculture land for agriculture purposes. In this regard it is submitted that the finding is solely based on Girdavari Report. No spot visit was carried out by the Verification Unit. He can, although compromise on the quality of seeds used to grow the said crop as he requires fodder. Hence, in revenue records fodder is not a designated crop. 2.19. In the present case Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust selected the crops based on the nutritional value to feed its animals. They grew BajraGwaar, Groundnut, Wheat, Maatar and Rajma so as to harvest animal fodder having nutritions of the said crops. Accordingly, in the revenue records, crops were mentioned and not the byproduct i.e. fodder. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn. 2.20. It is submitted that ld. AO should have made proper enquires from Tehsildaar for verification of the fact whether fodder was the main produce or the crops were the main produce. 2.21. The assessee is now placing on record, confirmation from three land owners, who are cultivating the adjacent lands. The details of which are as under:

S.NO Name of the owner KhasramNo.in Ratanpura Jaipur AE Page No. 1 Ramchandra 2/6 10 2 Ramjilal 135/5 11 DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 3 Sitaram 155/5 12 All the 3 are confirming the fact of produce of fodder on the said land. The confirmations are moved as additional evidence with a separate prayer [AE – Confirmations: Pages 10-12]. It is submitted that at this stage also these agriculturists can be called for verification of the facts. 2.22. Without prejudice to above, alternatively, it is submitted that as per section 2(1A)(a) “Agriculture income means rent or revenue derived from land which is situated in India and is used for agricultural purposes...” In the present case of the assessee it is duly submitted that the land being agricultural land was owned by him. Further, the fact that the said land was leased out to Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust is undisputed as is confirmed by the lessee. The Girdavari Report categorically provides that agricultural activities were carried out on the said land. No evidence has been brought on record which could suggest that agriculture was not being carried upon the land. Hence, the income earned by the assessee was agriculture income. It fulfils all the conditions as required under the law. Hence, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. In view of above the addition made in the hands of the assessee of Rs. 35,83,000 is illegal and devoid of merits. Relief may please be granted by considering the said receipt as agriculture income and deleting the addition made u/s 68.

3. Submissions for addition of Rs. 17,54,390/- 3.1. The assessee carried out agricultural activity on another land situated in Karauli District admeasuring 30.10 Acres. During the year under consideration the assessee had declared agriculture income of Rs. 17,14,830 on account of sale of agricultural produce. 3.2. Agricultural produce of Rs. 11,92,776/- being crops was sold in Krishi UpajMandiSamiti, Gangapur City, Rajasthan. Further, agriculture produce of Rs. 5,61,614/- being vegetables were sold in rural open market.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 3.3. The assessee before ld. AO submitted bills issued by KrishiUpajMandiSamiti, Gangapur evidencing 4 sale transactions aggregating to Rs. 11,92,776 [PB – Sale Bills: Pages 21-24 ].Details of which are as under:

The proceeds of Rs. 10,00,000 were received through banking channel on 18-06- 2019 [PB – Bank Statement: Pages 25-30] and Rs. 1,92,776 were received in cash [PB – Cashbook: Pages 31-33]. Majority of sales i.e. of Rs. 10,84,312 were made to Bhonri Lal MoolChand Jain. Confirmation of Bhonri Lal Mool Chand Jain was also placed on record [PB – Confirmation Page 34]. 3.4. Further, the assessee sold vegetables in rural market. Since rural economy is an informal economy wherein formal bills are not issued and people lack banking habits no details could be furnished. 3.5. Ld. AO treated the entire agriculture income to be unexplained and made addition of Rs. 17,14,830 u/s 68. 3.6. Ld. AO, doubted the income because of the fact that meager expenses of just Rs. 39,560/- i.e. 2.25% of the gross sales proceeds were claimed as agriculture expense. In the opinion of ld. AO the expenses should have been atleast 35-40%. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee, for the purpose of cultivation, obtained services of a few persons. As is the regular practice, the cost of the services was to be settled through barter system i.e. as against services crops cultivated were to be given. Hence, the assessee first, passed on certain amount of agriculture produce to the service providers. Thereafter, the assessee sold the net produce (Total Produce – Produce settled as against barter) in the open market. Except for the DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena service charges, the assessee incurred expenses of just Rs. 39,560/-. Hence, the expenses were not just 2.25% but were of a higher percentage.Ld. AO failed to appreciate the regular practice of the agriculture industry and considered that expenses were not booked. 3.7. It is submitted that out of the total agriculture income of Rs. 17,14,830/- , Rs. 10,00,000/- were received through banking channel, Rs. 11,92,776/- are supported through independent Mandi Bills, Rs. 10,84,312/- are confirmed by the purchaser. Hence, considering the entire income to be unexplained and not in the nature of agriculture is devoid of merits. Without prejudice to above and without agreeing, ld. AO at worst could have estimated higher expenses and, accordingly, could have made addition. 3.8. Ld AO further observed a few differences in the amounts and dates on which entries were passed in the books. In this regard, it is submitted that there were a few human errors made by the accountant while writing the books of the assessee. Such errors when identified, were rectified and a revised cashbook was furnished [PB Pages 31-33]. Itis submitted that ld. AO erred in adversely viewing the revision of cash book without bringing on record that the entries passed in the books of the assessee were false entries. 3.9. It is established principle that entries in the books of accounts are not decisive of the nature and character of expenses. This issue was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC) [PB Pages 108 112]. In this case the tax authorities and the Hon’ble ITAT, denied the deduction of the sales tax liability to the taxpayer contending that the taxpayer denied its liability to pay the sales tax and also, had not made a provision in its books of account for the said liability. Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the claim of the assessee and held that “....We are wholly unable to appreciate the suggestion that if an assessee under some misapprehension or mistake fails to make an entry in the books of account and although, under the law, a deduction must be allowed by the Income- tax Officer, the assessee will lose the right of claiming or will be debarred from being allowed that deduction. Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter....” Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. &Industries Ltd. (2009) 181 Taxan 5 (Delhi) [PB Pages 113- 115]followed the above contentions. 3.10. It is submitted that ld. AO did not make independent inquires for verification of agriculture income. If deemed appropriate, inquiries can now be made from KrishiUpajMandi, Family Members (Co owners of land) and Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain for verification of facts. 3.11. It is submitted that ld. AO also doubted the ownership of the land which were cultivated by the assessee. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee from years is the cultivating family owned undivided land. The agriculture income disclosed in the ITR in different years, is as under: S. No. Assessment Year Agriulture income 1 2018-19 13,86,900/- 2 2019-20 14,56,200/- S. No. Assessment Year Agriulture income 1 2018-19 13,86,900/- 2 2019-20 14,56,200/- Such income has never been doubted and have been accepted as it is. Further, the assessee had placed on record copy of Land Revenue Documents evidencing the family owned land. It was mutually agreed between the family members that the assessee would be cultivating 30.10 acre of land. Since, the land is not formally partitioned amongst the family members, the other family members are not comfortable in writing about the usage of 30.10 acre of land because in future it might create an evidence against them. It is submitted that substance of the transaction should be considered. 3.12. It is reiterated that the agriculture income earned by the assessee is duly supported by bills of KrishiUpajMandi amounting to Rs. 11,92,776/- [PB Pages

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 21-24], Girdavari Report [PB Pages 35-37], confirmation of Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain [PB Page 34] and bank statement evidencing receipt of consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- [PB Pages 25-30]. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn. 3.13. It is pertinent to note that the assessee sold agriculture produce amounting to Rs. 10,84,312/- to Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain. Because of the error of accountant, the sum received from Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain was recorded as Loan. However, on identification of error, the entry was revised and brought on record. In the assessment proceedings, the entire agriculture income, was added to the total income treating the same to be unexplained. Such agriculture income included Rs. 10,84,312/- received from Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain (Ground no. 2). Further, the exact amount received from Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain was considered as unexplained cash credit and was again added to the total income of the assessee (Ground no. 6). Meaning thereby, receipt of Rs. 10,84,312/- was added twice, which is illegal. If at all addition is confirmed the assessee deserves relief atleast in one of the grounds. In view of above it is submitted that agriculture income of Rs. 17,54,390/- is fully explained and substantiated. Therefore, relief may please be granted by deleting the addition made u/s 68. In view of above the total addition of Rs. (35,83,000/-+17,54,390/-) deserves to be deleted.” Ld. DR submitted that the land which has been leased to Apollo Medical College is not recorded in revenue records in the name of the assessee. Complete payments have not been made towards the purchase consideration. The title of the land according to him is not clear as is evident from the revenue records. Ld. DR also emphasized that the additional evidences have been admitted by NFAC in gross

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena violation of Rule 46A and, therefore, this relief granted by NFAC deserves to be quashed by allowing the appeal of the Department.

Ld. AR supported the order of NFAC and submitted that land is purchased by the assessee through a registered sale deed which was before the AO. It was submitted that as per section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 “sale is transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised”. Therefore, even if entire consideration has not been paid and certain amount remains outstanding still the transfer is validly taken effect in favour of the assessee. Following case laws in this regard have been relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee:

 Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. [AIR 2020 SC 3310]  Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and Ors. [AIR 1999 SC 1441]  Rajendra Prakash Vs. Babita Gupta and Ors. [2000 40 ALR 196] We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We have already allowed additional ground of appeal of the Department regarding admission of additional evidences by NFAC in disregard of the procedure laid down in Rule 46A(3).

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena After having gone through the submissions made before us by the ld. AR of the assessee, including the case laws relied upon by him, we are of the view that for the purpose of agriculture income as defined in section 2(1A), ownership of agriculture land is not a pre-condition. However, in the interest of justice and in order to verify the evidences placed on record in this regard we set aside this issue, to the extent of verification of agriculture income of Rs. 35,83,000/-, as shown by the assessee, to the file of the AO. We direct the AO to verify all such evidences including any other evidence as may be submitted by the assessee before him and thereafter decide the issue of agriculture income amounting to Rs. 35,83,000/-. The assessee is also hereby directed to fully cooperate with the AO in such set aside proceedings. Thus, this relief of Rs. 35,83,000/- granted by NFAC is set aside to the file of AO. for deciding the issue after taking into consideration the additional evidences furnished and/or any other explanation or evidences furnished before him.

In respect of agriculture income of Rs. 17,14,830/- we note that agriculture income from the said land has been offered for tax in earlier assessment years and have been accepted by the Department. The bills have been produced for sale of agriculture produce. Major portion is received through banking channel. Therefore,

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena we do not find any infirmity in the order of NFAC granting relief to the assessee in respect of the said income of Rs. 17,14,830/-.

Thus, addition of Rs. 35,83,000/- deleted by NFAC is restored back to the file of AO and order of NFAC is upheld regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 17,14,830/- GROUND NO. 2: Addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 84,285/- under section 69C of the IT Act, 1961 AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, observed that certain payments have been made by assessee to M/s Bajaj Finserv which have not been recorded in the assessee’s books of account. AO, accordingly, held the said payments being out of books which he added invoking the provisions of section 69C. Aggrieved by the said addition assessee preferred appeal before NFAC.

Following submission was made by the assessee before NFAC which is extracted from the order of NFAC pages 13 and 14:

“GROUND NO. 2 ADDITION OF RS. 84,312/- U/S 69C 1. SUBMISSIONS 1.1 Ld AO, during the assessment proceedings identified the payments made to M/s Bajaj Finserv which, in his opinion, were finding mention in the account statement vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena of the assessee maintained with Bajaj Finserv [PB Loan Statements: Pages 38 of the assessee maintained with Bajaj Finserv [PB Loan Statements: Pages 38-45], of the assessee maintained with Bajaj Finserv [PB Loan Statements: Pages 38 however, were not reflected in the bank account of the assessee (AO Page 13 re not reflected in the bank account of the assessee (AO Page 13-14). re not reflected in the bank account of the assessee (AO Page 13 1.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee entries aggregating to Rs. 1.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee entries aggregating to Rs. 1.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee entries aggregating to Rs. 1,23,519 were reconciled. However, for entries aggregating to Rs. 84,285 it was 1,23,519 were reconciled. However, for entries aggregating to Rs. 84,285 it was 1,23,519 were reconciled. However, for entries aggregating to Rs. 84,285 it was held by ld. AO that the said payments were made out of books. said payments were made out of books. 1.3 It is submitted that the assessee never made the said unexplained payments of 1.3 It is submitted that the assessee never made the said unexplained payments of 1.3 It is submitted that the assessee never made the said unexplained payments of Rs. 84,285/-. The statement of accounts of Bajaj Finserv, itself provides that the . The statement of accounts of Bajaj Finserv, itself provides that the . The statement of accounts of Bajaj Finserv, itself provides that the said payments were cancelled and, hence, no payment said payments were cancelled and, hence, no payment was made. 1.4 The above contention can be understood from the following example: 1.4 The above contention can be understood from the following example: 1.4 The above contention can be understood from the following example:

Amount(Dr) Amount(Cr) PB Date Narration PB 11-02-2020 Cross Customer Payable (Due) Cross Customer Payable (Due) 5,000 1 1 11-02-2020 Cross Customer Payable(Due) Cross Customer Payable(Due) 7,000 1 1 11-02-2020 Cross Customer Payable(Due) Cross Customer Payable(Due) 8,000 1 1 11-02-2020 Cross Customer Payable(Due) Cross Customer Payable(Due) 5,000 2 2 11-02-2020 Cross Customer Payable(Due) Cross Customer Payable(Due) 7,000 2 2 11-02-2020 Cross Customer Payable(Due) Cross Customer Payable(Due) 8,000 2 2 20,000 20,000 In view of above, it is submitted that since no payments as identified to be out of In view of above, it is submitted that since no payments as identified to be out of In view of above, it is submitted that since no payments as identified to be out of books were made addition made u/s 69C amounting to Rs. 84,312/ books were made addition made u/s 69C amounting to Rs. 84,312/- deserves to be deleted.” Ld. DR submitted that NFAC has deleted the addition in spite of the fact that ther Ld. DR submitted that NFAC has deleted the addition in spite of the fact that there Ld. DR submitted that NFAC has deleted the addition in spite of the fact that ther was a finding of AO that payments have been made out of books. On the other was a finding of AO that payments have been made out of books. On the other was a finding of AO that payments have been made out of books. On the other hand ld. AR supported the order of NFAC and submitted that no payments were hand ld. AR supported the order of NFAC and submitted that no payments were hand ld. AR supported the order of NFAC and submitted that no payments were made out of books which has been so appreciated by NFAC while allowing the made out of books which has been so appreciated by NFAC while allowing the made out of books which has been so appreciated by NFAC while allowing the relief.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We note that, ld. DR has not been able to place before us anything to controvert the finding of NFAC. We agree that no payments have been made out of books. There have been reversal entries for certain cheques which were dishonored and cleared subsequently. Accordingly, we agree with the findings of the NFAC and we do not find any reason to deviate from such findings. Thus, the above Ground No. 2 of the Department is dismissed and order of NFAC in this regard is upheld.

GROUND NO. 3: Addition under section 68 of Rs. 2,31,88,312/- This ground of the Department is consisted of additions deleted by NFAC in respect of following loans/advances taken by the assessee:

Name of Party Amount (Rs.) Sanjay Traders 40,00,000/- JSB Evergreen Sweets & Snacks 23,50,000/- Prabhu Dayal 4,00,000/- Bhonri Lal Mool Chand Jain 10,84,312/- Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust 1,53,54,000/- Total 2,31,88,312/- Ld. DR submitted that in respect of each of the above credits assessee has not been able to discharge his onus in terms of section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The order of DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena AO is exhaustive and NFAC has allowed the relief without properly appreciating the findings of AO. In respect of loan from Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust it was submitted by ld. DR that transactions lack genuineness and subsequent payment of affiliation fees has not been substantiated.

The assessee made following submissions and furnished evidences before lower authorities appearing at NFAC Order pages 14- 22:

“GROUND NO. 3 ADDITION OF RS. 67,50,000/- U/S 68 RECEIVED AS UNSECURED LOANS.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena (i) ITR of Sanjay Traders [PB Page 46], (ii)Computation of Total Income of Sanjay Traders [PB Pages 47-49], (iii)Audited Financial Statements of Sanjay Traders [PB Pages 50-54], (iv)Confirmation of Sanjay Traders [PB Page 55] (v)PAN Card of Sanjay Agarwal, proprietor of Sanjay Traders [PB Page 56] and (vi)Bank Account Statement of Sanjay Traders [PB Pages 57-83] 1.1.3 Ld AO, just on observing that the opening capital and closing capital of Sanjay Traders was less than the amount of loan advanced he considered that Sanjay Traders lacked creditworthiness. 1.1.4 It is submitted that ld. AO failed to look into the complete financial statements of Sanjay Traders. Sanjay Traders was having turnover of Rs. 12,36,24,605/- which is manifolds the amount of loan given i.e. Rs. 40,00,000/-. Hence, in such a situation the availability of funds with Sanjay Traders cannot be doubted. 1.1.5 It is further submitted that the amount was given on 13-05-2019 out of the cash credit limit available with Sanjay Traders. Hence, the source of amount in the hands of Sanjay Traders is fully explained and justified. [PB Bank Statement: Pages 57-83] 1.1.6 It is also pertinent to note that the ld. AO failed to appreciate that the loan was taken just for 6 months. Any businessman having more than 30 times turnover can grant a short term loan irrespective of the amount of his capital. 1.1.7 It is worth mentioning that the department was having all the details with them with regards to Sanjay Traders. Ld. AO, not being convinced, could have enquired independently about the loan. However, ld. AO, for the reason best known to him, sat with folded hands, did not make any enquiry. It is submitted that verification can be made now during these proceedings if deemed appropriate. Without finding defects in the documents furnished, ld. AO just considered the loan to be unexplained which is illegal.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 1.2 Submissions for loan received from JSB Evergreen Sweets and Snacks amounting to Rs. 23,50,000/- 1.2.1 Ld AO, made addition u/s 68 of the unsecured loan received from JSB Evergreen Sweets and Snacks amounting to Rs. 23,50,000/- because the assessee could not furnish ITR and Bank Statement of JSB Evergreen Sweets and Snacks 1.2.2 It is submitted that during the assessment proceedings the assessee, in order to discharge his onus as contained u/s 68, placed on record the following: A.)Name, Address [PB Page 84] B.)Copy of confirmation of accounts of JSB Evergreen Sweets and Snacks, [PB Page 84] C.)Copy of Bank statement evidencing receipt and repayment of loan [PB Pages 85-88]. Hence, the assessee proved identity by submitting name, address and PAN. The assessee proved genuineness by placing on record the confirmation. The assessee also proved creditworthiness as the entire transaction took place through banking channel. 1.2.3 It is pertinent to note that the loan was taken for a very short duration. The loan was received on 11-06-2019 and was repaid within 2 months that is on 30-07- 2019. The bank statement is evidencing both receipts and repayment [PB Pages 85-88]. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn. 1.2.4 It is worth mentioning that the department was having all the details with them with regards to JSB Evergreen Sweets and Snacks. Ld. AO not being convinced could have enquired independently about the loan. However, ld. AO, for the reason best known to him, sat with folded hands, did not make any enquiry. It is submitted that verification can be made now during these proceedings if deemed appropriate. Without finding defects in the documents furnished, ld. AO just considered the loan to be unexplained which is illegal.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 1.3 Loan received from Prabhu Dayal amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- 1.3.1 The assessee during the year under consideration took unsecured loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from Prabhu Dayal through banking channel on 05-02- 2020 and duly accounted the same.Theassessee has placed on record his bank statement to evidence such fact1.4 Without prejudice to above it is submitted that unless, there is a finding that unaccounted cash of the assessee flowed back to of the assessee. Reliance is placed on the decision of in the case of PCIT vs. Shubh Mines Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No 96/15 (Raj) wherein it was held as under:evidence on record establishing that the money shown to have received as share application money, was as a matter of fact, unaccounted money belonging to the assessee company, the finding arrived at by the AO, which is based on suspicion, has rightly been held not sustainable in the eyes of law. Suffice it to say that the finding arrived at by the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, which remains a finding of fact, cannot be said to be capricio 1.4 Without prejudice to above it is submitted no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee as the alleged bogus loan was repaid in the subsequent year. In the case of ST and JSB the loan was repaid in the same year. Reliance is placed on the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, 2022 [PB Pages 116-117].- payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques. 1.5 The above judgement has been followed in a recent judgement of RAS Concepts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 95 ITR 46, 2022 [PB Pages].- 9.4 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, though the transactions of the loan received by the assessee are not free from any doubt but in either of the case, once repayment of the loan has been established based on the documentary evidence, the credit entries cannot be looked into in isolation after ignoring the debit entries. Thus, in view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we are not inclined to DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena uphold the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Accordingly we set aside the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced In view of above additions of Rs. 67,50,000/- (40,00,000/- + 23,50,000/- + 4,00,000/-) made u/s 68 on account of alleged bogus loan is illegal. Relief may please be provided by deleting the addition. GROUND NO. 4 ADDITION OF RS. 10,84,312/- U/S 68 QUESTIONING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH BHONRILAL MOOLCHAND JAIN.

1. SUBMISSIONS 1.1 The assessee during the year under consideration sold agriculture produce of Rs. 10,84,312/- to Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain. Rs. 10,00,000/- were received by the assessee through Banking channel. Copy of Sale Bills, Account Confirmation and Bank Statement were placed on record during the assessment proceedings to substantiate the transaction. Also refer the submission made for Ground No. 1 with respect to Agriculture income from sale of agricultural produce. 1.2 It is reiterated that the accountant of the assessee committed a mistake while writing the accounts of the assessee. Sale Consideration as against sale of agriculture produce was recorded as unsecured loan. However, soon on realizing the mistake, the error was rectified.changed his stand of agriculture income and, thus, invoked the provisions of section 68 and made addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 1.3 It is submitted that the assessee with the help of the following evidences proved the transaction of sale:

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena A.)Sale Bills issued by KrishiUpajMandi. [PB Pages 21-24] B.)Confirmation of Buyer (Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain) having Name, Address, PAN. [PB Page 34] C.)Bank statement of the assessee. [PB Pages 25-30] 1.4 None of the evidences were found false, further, no evidence against the assessee was brought on record. Hence, the onus of the assessee stands discharged and no addition without any contrary evidence on record can be made. 1.5 If ld. AO was not satisfied/convinced with the explanation offered by the assessee then he should have examined Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain for verification of facts. However, ld. AO, for the reasons best known to him, sat with folded hands and made the addition. It is submitted that verification can be made now during these proceedings if deemed appropriate. 1.6 It is pertinent to note that the entire agricultural income has been added in to the total income of the assessee. Such income includes the sale proceeds of Rs. 10,84,312/- from Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain (Ground No. 1). Thereafter, further addition of receipts from Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain being Rs. 10,84,312/- has been made u/s 68 (Ground No. 4). This has resulted into double taxation of the same amount which is illegal. If at all addition is confirmed, then the assessee deserves relief in atleast one of the grounds. In view of above additions of Rs. 10,84,312/- made u/s 68 is illegal. Relief may please be provided by deleting the addition. GROUND NO. 5 ADDITION OF RS. 1,53,54,000/- U/S 68 1. SUBMISSIONS 1.1 During the year under consideration the assessee received advanceof Rs. 1,58,54,000/- from Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. Part of such advance was considered to be unexplained and, accordingly, provisions of Section 68 were invoked and addition of Rs. 1,53,54,000/- were made.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 1.2 It is submitted that Apollo Animal Medical Trust gave advance of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- through banking channel. In order to substantiate such advance, the assessee placed on record the following: a.)Name [PB Page 89] b.)Address [PB Page 89] c.)PAN [PB Page 89] d.)ITR [PB Page 89] e)Computation of Total Income [PB Page 90-91] f.)Audited Financial Statements of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust [PB Pages 92-107] g.)Bank Statement evidencing receipt of loan [PB Pages 25-30] 1.3 In response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) to Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, they had furnished copy of the ledger account maintained in their books of the assessee to confirm the said advance. Further, copy of ITR, Bank Statement were also furnished (AO Page 19). Hence, apart from the evidences furnished by the assessee, a confirmation was also filed independently by the lender. 1.4 As a matter of utmost precaution, the assessee is also moving account confirmation of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust as additional evidence to further prove the genuineness of the advance. 1.5 Hence, the onus as contained u/s 68 is completely discharged with regards to advance of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. 1.6 During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted the reason for obtaining such advance i.e. for deposition of affiliation fees to University of Animal Science, Bikaner. It was highlighted by the assessee that, since many litigations were pending against Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, there were high chances of receiving directions of freezing the bank accounts of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 1.7 Ld. AO observed that the amount for affiliation fees was received in October, 2019 and payment of affiliation fees was made in August, 2020. Hence, it was considered that the assessee enjoyed the said sum for 10 months. Further, ld. AO also observed that the amount of advance given was not appearing in Schedule 4 of Loans and Advances of the Balance Sheet of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. Accordingly, such receipt of Rs. 1,50,00,000 was treated to be unexplained. 1.8 In this regard it is submitted that provisions of Section 68 have been wrongly invoked in the present case. The assessee has clearly explained the advance and the reason of receiving such advance. The advance was duly substantiated by placing on record Name, Address, PAN, Financial Statements, Bank Statements. The advance was further confirmed by the lender and the lender also furnished ITR, ledger account and confirmation. Hence, the credit in the Books of Accounts stands fully explained. Ld. AO has also not doubted the ultimate payment of affiliation fees. 1.9 In the above factual background it is submitted that ld. AO has erred in considering external factors like the time for which the funds have stayed with the assessee and the presentation of financial statements of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. It is submitted that the payment of affiliation fees is not disputed. Further, the affiliation fees have to be paid only when it becomes due, generally, advance payments are not made in such cases. It is also not under dispute that the bank accounts of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust were freezed time and again. Hence, even if the funds stayed with the assessee for 10 months, atleast provisions of Section 68 cannot be invoked. 1.10 It is submitted that the Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, in response to notice u/s 133(6) duly acknowledged and confirmed the transaction of such advance. Having done so, the entries in the books of accounts and the presentation in the financial statements becomes irrelevant. Still if ld. AO was having doubt, he should have examined Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. However, so far as provisions of section 68 are concerned, no addition can be made in the said factual background and given circumstances.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 1.11 Other than the abovementioned loan received through banking channel, the assessee recovered amount of Rs, 3,54,000 from Pushpa Devi Alwar on behalf of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. The recovery was made by the assessee because the bank accounts of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust were being freezed time and again on account of prolonged disputes. Since, such sum was not transferred to Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, the said amount was also considered to be part of loan received by the assessee. 1.12 As submitted above, the assessee has placed on record all the details in order to substantiate the credit in his books made with the name of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. Further, in response to notice u/s 133(6), Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust confirmed the said adjustment between various parties. Hence, again the onus u/s 68 stands discharged. Still if ld. AO was having doubt, he should have examined Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. However, so far as provisions of section 68 are concerned, no addition can be made in the said factual background and given circumstances. In view of above, addition of Rs. 1,53,54,000/- (1,50,00,000/- + 3,54,000/-) made u/s 68 is illegal and devoid of merits. Relief may please be granted by relieving the said addition.” The ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of NFAC and reiterated the submissions made before the first appellate authority. Ld. AR submitted that evidences submitted before lower authorities were sufficient to discharge the assessee’s onus under section 68. Ld. AR further submitted that ld. AO has not at all conducted any independent enquiry and without bringing any adverse material on record rejecting the assessee’s explanation and disregarding the evidences furnished before him was unjustified. NFAC has appreciated the facts in correct perspective and has rightly allowed the relief.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena We have gone through the order of NFAC and have also heard both the parties. We have also gone through the evidences furnished before lower authorities by the assessee to discharge his onus under section 68.

In respect of loan from Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust a query was raised by the Bench in respect of subsequent payment of affiliation fees by the assessee out of funds received from the said college. Our attention was drawn by ld. AR to Department Paper Book page 128 wherein on 4th August, 2020 payment of affiliation fees amounting to Rs. 1 Crore is reflected. On further query raised by the Bench ld. AR submitted evidences in respect of payment of entire affiliation fees of Rs. 1.50 Crores. Thus, the amount is received through banking channel and affiliation fees paid through banking channel is also substantiated.

According to us, NFAC has rightly placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements referred to in detail at pages 28 and 29 of the order:

 Nimbus (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) & 930/Del/2019  Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal.)  CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP)

Thus, we are of the view that NFAC has rightly granted the relief in respect of deleting the addition under section 68 in respect of above loans amounting to Rs.

DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena 2,31,88,312/-. The order of NFAC is upheld and Ground No. 3 of Department is dismissed.

In the result appeal of the Department is partly allowed to the extent discussed above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/03/2025.