DILIP KHANDELWAL ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SATYANARAYAN JAGANNATH KABRA, AHMEDABAD

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial member:

1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in laws, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,05,59,000/- being unaccounted cash receipt without considering the fact of the case that as per the notings in the ledgers, it was clear that the assessee has taken cash receipt and the assessee has not furnished any explanation as to on what account these cash has been received.

2. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- being unaccounted commission income without considering the fact of the case that no such commission was offered by the assessee in his return.

3. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transactions in question are unaccounted transactions, for which the parties do not keep the record and the same is done on the basis of mutual trust between the parties and hence transactions recorded in coded form by any of the partly is accepted by the other transacting partly.

4. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the HIM Group before the Hon'ble ITSC has duly disclosed additional income as attributable to the total turnover of "Training Module" which proves the authenticity of the ledgers in the Training Module.

3. The brief facts of the case are that during the survey action u/s.133A of the Act carried out at the case of M/s. HJM Group, wherein, certain incriminating material were found, out of which, one was the copy of the ledger in which the details of certain transactions were noted both in cash and (by revenue) & CO No.47/Ahd/2025 (by assessee) ACIT vs. Satyanarayan Jagannath Kabra Asst.Year : 2015-16 3 transactions done through the banking channel. The name of the concerned person with whom the said transactions were noted was mentioned as ‘Satubhai Kabra’. The Assessing Officer (AO) has taken a view that the said ‘Satubhai Kabra’ mentioned in the ledger was the short-name of the assessee Satyanarayan Jagannath Kabra. The AO, accordingly, noted that there were transactions of Rs.8,05,59,000/- which were not disclosed by the assessee in his books of accounts and further that the assessee had also earned a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of commission income, which was not accounted for. The AO, therefore, made the impugned addition in the name of the assessee on account of unaccounted income/undisclosed transactions with the aforesaid Group. However, in view of our observation made above, the additions are not liable to be sustained on merits.

4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the assessee has not done transactions with the M/s.HJM Group and that the assessee had nothing to do with the said transactions as the assessee has not carried out any business transactions during the year under consideration. Further, the name ‘Satubhai Kabra’, did not belong to the assessee and that was a very common name in the city. It was also pleaded that the transactions in the said ledger also recorded banking transactions, however, there was no such transaction carried out in the bank account of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the above submissions observed that various transactions contained bank account number and UTR and number of RTGS with the name of bank and these RTGS were done through banking channel. However, the AO has not made any independent enquiry about the bank account nor from M/s.HJM Group which had maintained the aforesaid ledger and no one confirmed that the said transactions belonged to the (by revenue) & CO No.47/Ahd/2025 (by assessee) ACIT vs. Satyanarayan Jagannath Kabra Asst.Year : 2015-16 4 assessee. He observed that the AO could not establish from any evidence that the name ‘Satubhai Kabra’ mentioned in the seized ledger was that of the assessee or that the assessee had done any alleged transactions with M/s.HJM Group.T he Ld. CIT(A), therefore, deleted the impugned additions, so made by the AO.

4.1. After going through the detailed order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has categorically noted that the AO has made the impugned additions assuming that the transactions noted in the ledger found during the survey action in the case of M/s.HJM Group belonged to the assessee. However, the AO could not correlate the said transactions with the assessee, even the transactions done through the banking channel. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO. There is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is hereby dismissed.

Assessee’s CO No.47/Ahd/2025 (in AY 2015-16) 5. In his Cross Objections, the assessee has raised the issue of validity of the reopening of the assessment. “1. The KLd. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming validity of assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on untenable grounds.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 09 /02/2026.