ARVIND KUMAR AGGARWAL,ARVIND KUMAR AGGARWAL, AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

Shri Asheem Goel was stated to be salaried government employee having no source to pay huge interest amount of Rs.1 Lacs per month. Shri Asheem Goel and all the other parties as mentioned in the diary filed affidavit / confirmation that they obtained loan in thousands of rupees only. Further, investigating officer recorded statement of few of the parties from which they have not made any adverse inference on the transaction found recorded in the diary. The interest at 1% to 2% was charged from all the parties and the figures of interest as written exactly matched with percentage applied on amounts of advances. Only one figure i.e., interest amounting to Rs.1000.00 per month was recorded with pencil in which dot was not legible from which the department suspected that all the figures were deficient by two zeros and therefore, all the figures should be considered in Lacs. The same was not the case. Thus, the assessee controverted the conclusion of Ld. AO and stated that the hypothetical assumption regarding addition of two zeros after all the figures was totally baseless. The suspicion however strong could not take place of legal proof in the absence of any adverse material against the assessee. In subsequent reply dated 05-12-2018, the assessee furnished cash flow statement and quantified the unexplained investments at Rs.2,89,281/- considering the circulation of money. 3.5 However, the contention that the advances pertained to Shri Sachin Aggarwal was rejected by Ld. AO considering the admission made by the assessee in recorded statement u/s 132(4). At few places in the diary, signatures were done by the assessee himself.

Therefore, the plea that the advances were given by Shri Sachin Aggarwal was rejected. The assessee’s plea on deficient zeros was also rejected since there were pencil entries at other places also wherein pencil dot was clearly legible. There were numerous entries with pencil wherein the dot was clearly legible. There were several instances in the diary from which it could be seen that the amount written against the nature of transactions was very small and they would make sense only if two more zeros were added against the same. Few of such instances has been enumerated by Ld. AO at Page-30 of the assessment order. On the issue of squaring-off of debit and credit transactions as pleaded by the assessee, Ld. AO concurred that there were several instances in the diary where the initial amount as advanced by the assessee was received back on different dates. Therefore, only the initial amount was to be considered as advances and entries which were returning of advances by different parties to the assessee were not to be considered as loan advance. Finally, all the transactions were held to be deficient by two zeros and advances so made by the assessee to various parties was quantified at Rs.98,45,100/- which was added to assessee’s income as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Similar protective addition was made in the hands of Shri Sachin Aggarwal. 3.6 The Ld. AO thereafter proceeded to estimate the interest on these advances. The maximum date of crossing of an entry as per diary was one year and seven months. The transactions for which no date was mentioned, it was to be presumed that the same were squared-off within 2 years. On the basis of the same, Ld. AO computed interest income of Rs.6,40,275/- for this year and added the same to the income of the assessee. The protective addition was made in the hands of Shri Sachin Aggarwal. 3.7 Another addition as made by Ld. AO was on account of alleged profit on investment made in plotting of certain land. The same was based on loose sheet marked as Annexure A-1 containing 78 loose sheets. The Page Nos. 1 to 7 was with respect to Project-1 and Page Nos.26 to 31 was with respect to Project-2. The pages allegedly contained transactions of sale and purchase of plots as carried by the assessee along with different parties. 3.8 The Page No.1 was the rough sketch of the Project-1 which was stated to be situated at College Road, Ambala City. The Page No.2 reflected sale of certain shops for Rs.22.80 Lacs. The Page Nos. 3 & 4 reflected sale of plots for Rs.320.79 Lacs. The Page No.5 reflected investment of Rs.72 Lacs and profit of Rs.88.53 Lacs. These two items aggregated to Rs.160.53 Lacs and the assessee’s profit share therein to the extent of 22.5% was shown to be Rs.36,11,925/-. This payment was shown to be cleared during the year. The Page No.6 reflected expenses incurred on the transaction. The Page No.7 contained summary of entire projects. 3.9 The Page Nos. 26 to 31 contained detail of Project-2 which was stated to be on Jain College Road. The Page No.26 was the rough sketch of the project. The Pages No.27 to 29 reflected sales of plots and shops and expenses incurred. The Page No.30 contained summary of the entire project transaction. The pending investment up-to 31-12-2015 was shown to be Rs.6,04,960/- against the name of Lucky (Assessee). 3.10 The assessee, in statement u/s 132(4), stated that Page No.1-7 pertain to development of land at MDSD Road, Ambala City jointly with Mr. Amrit Lal, Bunty Singh, Mohan Lal and Mintu Ji whereas Pages 26-31 were another project at Ghale Road in partnership with Amrit Lal and Micky Ji. However, during post-search in statement u/s 131, the assessee retracted his statements and stated that the pages of the seized material was only estimation of land development projects prepared by him which was planned to be developed near MDSD College Road in Ambala city and Ghale Road, Ambala City. It was further submitted that the plotting of land was never carried out due to project viability issues. The assessee pointed out that there was no plotting of land on the entire stretch of both the roads. The projects were at the planning stages and could never be finalized and all the amounts written were mere projections. The assessee also expressed inability to tell the whereabouts of the parties who were mentioned on these pages. 3.11 To ascertain the veracity of assessee’s claim, field enquiries were conducted by Ld. AO to locate the two projects. The relevant findings of Ld. AO in this respect were as under: - 6.6.1 From the field enquiries, it was gathered that the assessee is a popular businessman of the city and is commonly known as “Lucky”. Further, from the field enquiries, it was gathered that he has plotted a project in the Ambala City which has plots for sale as on date. On further enquiries, it was gathered that the project of the assessee i.e., “Lucky” is in Naresh Vihar, Ambala City. 6.6.2 Information was called from some of the parties who were found to be presently holding small one or two plots of the project independently at Naresh Vihar, Ambala City. From some of these purchase deeds submitted by these parties, it was gathered that the Khasra No. of the Naresh Vihar, Ambala City project is 58 and they are registered as “Patti Rangda, Hadbast No.40, Tehsil & Zila Ambala” in the respective sale deeds. 6.6.3 Information was called from Sub-Registrar, Ambala u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 who provided registered sale deeds and Jamabandi at Khasra No.38 and Khasra No.59, Hadbast No.40 located at Naresh Vihar, Ghale Road, Ambala City. 6.6.4 Further from the field enquiry, one of the parties mentioned in the pages of seized material at Page No.7 i.e., “Bunty” was traced and on 26.10.2018 his statement was recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Shri Gurinder Pal Singh, S/o Lt. Sardar Bhupinder Singh, r/o 1311/6, Old Post Office Road, Ambala City is popularly known as Bunty. In his statement on path, Shri Gurinder Pal Singh / Bunty stated that he is property dealer and he has undertaken 3 projects in which he has assisted in selling of plots of these projects. In his statement he submitted that these 3 projects in which he has worked are as follows: - 1. At Ghale Road, Naresh Vihar, Ambala City 2. At Inderpuri, Backside of S.A. Jain High School, Ambala City 3. At Shalimar Colony, Backside Electricity Office at Ghale Road, Ambala City During field enquiries, Shri Bunty alias Shri Gurinder Pal Singh was traced and his statement was recorded u/s 131. He provided the map of one project situated at Naresh Vihar, Ambala City which matched with the map as found reflected on Page No.26 of the seized material. He also identified “Lucky” as the assessee. On the basis of the same, it was concluded by Ld. AO that this project had actual existence. Though the assessee vehemently opposed the conclusion of Ld. AO, the same stood rejected by Ld. AO. 3.12 Upon perusal of sale deeds as obtained from Sub- Registrar, Ambala City with respect to project-2 (Naresh Vihar), it was seen that the same was situated on ancestral property of Shri Shiv Charan s/o Shri Rajpal (popularly known as “bobby”). The land was transferred from Shri Shiv Charan to Shri Mewa Singh. In all the deeds, the purchaser was Shri Mewa Singh who executed the deeds with different parties who purchased the plots of the project. Shri Mewa Singh remained untraceable and he never filed his Income Tax return. Therefore, he was man of no means to carry out such transactions. Accordingly, the investment was made by other persons who had unaccounted funds for investment in the projects. From the seized documents, it was clear that the assessee was investor along with different parties. In the material, some expenses were booked in the name of Shri Mewa Singh which would prove that payments were made to Shri Mewa Singh for the project which appears to be commission in nature. It was, therefore, concluded that the investment in the projects were undertaken by the assessee group. In para 6.9.4 of the assessment order, it was noted that Project-1 could not be identified during field enquiries since the same was already sold out by 25-03-2015 and the account of the assessee stood cleared. On the date of enquiries, this project was not available for sale in the market as project of “Lucky” in contrast to 2nd project which still had pending stock. The plea of the assessee that both the projects did not belong to the assessee and the noting were mere projections made by some property dealer which were never executed by the assessee, was held to be an after-thought. The affidavit of Shri Rajiv, property dealer, as filed by the assessee in support of its contention was also rejected. The Ld. AO also brought on instances to establish that the parties in the seized material relating to the two projects were related to the assessee and had dealing with him whereas the assessee denied knowing them which prove that his submissions were not reliable. The plea that the figures were mere projections was also rejected in the light of nature of entries as found noted in these sheets. These instances have been brought on record by Ld. AO in the assessment order. In this background, Ld. AO proceeded to make addition of unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 3.13 The dates of investment in the two projects were not clear from the seized material. However, it was clear that sale of most of the plots in both the projects was completed before FY 2015-16. Therefore, it was probable that the assessee would have invested in these projects in FY 2012-13 after which he would have plotted and made sales of the plots in two projects. Therefore, the investment was held to be undertaken in AY 2013-14. The investment in Project- 1 was for Rs.72 Lacs which was added fully in assessee’s hands whereas the investment in Project-2 was for Rs.347.81 Lacs. Though the assessee’s share in Project-2 was not mentioned in the seized document, the same was worked out to the extent of 45%. The working of Ld. AO resulted into addition of unexplained investment by the assessee in Project-2 for Rs.156.51 Lacs. The aggregate addition thus made by Ld. AO as unaccounted investment was for Rs.228.51 Lacs (Rs.72 Lacs + Rs.156.51 Lacs). 3.14 Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee preferred further appeal against the assessment order before Ld. CIT(A). Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The assessee assailed the assessment on legal grounds as well as on merits by way of elaborate written submissions which have already been extracted in the impugned order. In these submissions, the assessee assailed the findings of Ld. AO qua advances as given by the assessee. It was contended that the suspicion however strong could not take place of proof as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. (37 ITR 271). It was stated that the persons as found mentioned in the Neelgagan Diary was examined by investigation wing and all of them confirmed the value of transaction as found noted in the diary and denied suppression of two zeros. The action of Ld. AO was contrary to the provisions of Sec.292C raising a presumption that the contents of seized material were true. There was no presumption available to the officer to modify the contents of the documents as per its own whims and fancies. The Ld. AO ignored the contents of the document and applied his own presumption. Reference was made to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (296 ITR 619) as well as in Ved Prakash Chaudhary (305 ITR 245) disregarding similar assumption of lower authorities. Reference was also made to the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Harvinder Pal Singla (ITA 456-458/Chd/2014); the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Sri K. Babu Rao (ITA No.335/Hyd/2012); the decision of Delhi Tribunal in O.P. Jewellers (TTJ 071 206) holding the same proposition. 4.2 The assessee further contended that each of the parties as mentioned in the seized notepad was called for and their respective statements were recorded u/s 131 by DDIT (Inv.). All parties denied allegation that figures in the diary was missing by two zeros and instead confirmed the contents of the dairy. The assessee also filed affidavit of Shri Asheem Goel confirming his transactions as found mentioned in the notepad. The rejection of these evidences by Ld. AO was without any basis. When the assessee as well as party to the transitions admitted true details of the transaction between them and both denied the figures to be missing by two zeros, Ld. AO could not ignore the same and proceed to make addition as per his own assumptions. 4.3 The assessee, in the alternative, pleaded for allowing benefits of amounts available with him out of borrowings from other parties or repayment received from other parties as found mentioned in the diary. There were multiple instances of such receipts but the same were treated as advances made which was unjustified. Further, majority of the advances were settled in this year itself. The AO did not conduct any independent enquiry from the parties whose advances were not crossed-off before concluding that these advances were continuing till AY 2017-18. The assessee brought out many errors in the computation of addition. He also drew attention to cash flow statement from AYs 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 and pleaded for application of peak credit theory considering the facts of the case. The Ld. AO refused to accept the cash flow statement and instead added all the advances without giving credit of repayments and borrowings which resulted into double addition in the hands of the assessee. The fact of the case justifies application of peak credit theory in terms of various judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ved Prakash (ITA No.235 of 2015); the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Apex Metchem Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.77-78 of 2008); the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in Surjit Kaur (ITA 1184/Chd/2011). In this background, the assessee pleaded for application of peak credit theory to these transactions. 4.4 On the issue of addition of unexplained investment in two projects, the assessee stated that the loose sheets were prepared by third-party property dealer which was brought to him as a proposal to make the investment. However, the assessee never acted on the same and no such investment was made by him in any such project. The notings in these papers were not in the handwriting of the assessee or any of his family members. During assessment, Ld. AO made independent enquiries which established that the land as mentioned in Project-1 was not physically found by Ld. AO. In fact, no such land was found, no agreement or deed for sale of land or proof of payment, investment by the assessee was ever found by Ld. AO. The AO was not able to link any actual transaction of payment or receipt by the assessee or any of the third-parties as mentioned in the seized papers. There was no direct or indirect corroboration of impugned findings of Ld. AO. Reference was made to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (3 AIR 410) wherein it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that every transaction as recorded in the regular books needs to be independently corroborated and proved when some liability is to be fastened in respect of such transactions. The legal principle as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court was that independent corroborative evidence is required in respect of entries in regular books of accounts. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause Vs.

Union of India (2017) 77 Taxmann.com 245 (SC) stressed the need for exercising caution and for bringing on record relevant, reliable and cogent evidence to corroborate the entries found noted in the seized material. The court, thus, concluded that loose sheets / papers are not admissible as evidence. Further, even if same are held to be admissible, additions could be made only if the entries were corroborated by any evidence. The corroboration of entries was completely missing in the present case. The documents as found were dumb documents which were never acted upon by the assessee. The seized papers were undated and not in the handwriting of the assessee and thus, could not be relied upon to make allegation of unexplained investment. The case law of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravi Kumar (294 ITR 78) was referred to by the assessee. The assessee also contended that the statement u/s 132(4) stood retracted subsequently by way of elaborate explanation and accordingly, unless corroborative evidences were brought on record to support the allegation, the retracted statement could not be the sole basis of addition. The confession would need corroboration as per the decision in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. (91 ITR 18) holding that though admission is an important piece of evidence but it could not be said to be conclusive one and the maker thereof could show that it was incorrect. Further, a retracted statement would have no evidentiary value and the same could not be used in the assessment. Similar retraction was accepted by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Aggarwal (379 ITR 367). The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai vs CIT (88 ITR 293) held that the party was entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him previously was not correct and true. 4.5 Similar arguments were advanced with respect to addition of unexplained investment in Project-2. It was pointed out that the said papers were brought in by a property dealer for investment but the same were not acted upon since the project was not found viable. The affidavit of property dealer Shri Rajiv was furnished confirming that he prepared the seized papers on behalf of owner of the land Shri Mewa Singh for soliciting investment from assessee for land developer. He further admitted that the assessee rejected the proposal and instead the project was executed by Shri Mewa Singh along with other property dealer. It was also contended that the enquiries of Ld. AO revealed that the assessee did not invest or owned the property and the transactions took place between persons unknown to the assessee. The assessee tabulated the outcome of enquiries as made by Ld. AO in this regard from which following conclusions could be drawn: - a. The land under dispute was ancestral property of Shri Shiv Charan Singh b. For the first time, he sold it to Mewa Singh starting from May 2016 and transfer was completed only on 01.08.2017 i.e., after search. c. Consideration of Rs.3,36,50,000/- was paid by Mewa Singh entirely by cheques d. Therefore, Mewa Singh plotted shops and regular plots on this land with help of architect. e. The land was thereafter sold by Mewa Singh through property dealer Gurinder Pal Singh, a property dealer, in June-July 2017 i.e., after search on assessee.

The above facts would prove that no investment was ever made by the assessee in FY 2012-13 and instead the purchase and sale of property was done much later in FY 2016-17 and 2017-18 between third parties who were unknown to the assessee. Ther was no fund flow established between the assessee or any other person to Mewa Singh to support the allegation of unexplained investment. Shri Mewa Singh purchased properties through his own bank account and no funds were paid by the assessee for such properties. In this background, the assessee assailed the impugned addition of unexplained investment in Project-2 and pleaded for deletion of the same. 4.6 In one of the legal grounds, the assessee assailed assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A on the ground that no search action was initiated against the assessee on 21-03-2016. The copy of search warrant dated 21-03-2017 would show that the name of the assessee was not appearing therein and as such no warrant was issued or served on assessee on that date. In assessee’s case, the search warrant was issued and served only on 26-05-2017 when his bank locker jointly held with his wife and son were searched. Therefore, no valid search took place on assessee on 21-03-2017 and AO could not assume jurisdiction u/s 153A on the basis of such illegal search as per the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Singh & Ors. (351 ITR 391) holding that no valid search u/s 132 took place on assessee in the absence of his name on the warrant. Similar were the decisions of Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Siksha vs CIT (336 ITR 112); the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Umlesh Goel (387 ITR 575) and various other decisions as enumerated in the impugned order. 4.7 In yet another legal ground, the assessee assailed jurisdiction on the ground that the same was based on invalid approval u/s 153D by Addl. CIT. The draft assessment order dated 30-12-2018 was forwarded to Addl. CIT which was approved on the same day. Therefore, the approval was mechanical and without application of mind. The entire case was dependent on seized material, enquiry folder which was never placed before Addl. CIT. Therefore, the assessment was alleged to be bad-in-law. 4.8 The Ld. CIT(A) noted the factual matrix in para 4 to 6.6 of the impugned order. In para 6.7, the Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the conclusion of Ld. AO that the assessee’s claim that figures were recorded in thousands and not in Lacs, lack evidentiary support and the AO’s reliance on surrounding circumstances and coded language interpretation was justified. The assessee failed to provide any substantive evidence to prove that the diary figures were not coded entries. Additionally, the assessee’s inability to correlate transactions with bank records, invoices or confirmation from third- parties further strengthen the inference that the diary recorded undisclosed financial dealings. Therefore, the diary contained details of loans and advances and interest payments which were not accounted for by the assessee in regular books of accounts. The nature and scale of these transactions as well as the involvement of well-established business entities indicate that these were business dealings of significant monetary value. The assessee contended that the figures recorded in the diary were in thousands and not in lacs attributing the perceived discrepancy to a missing decimal point or faded pencil entries. However, AO had pointed out that diary systematically records financial dealings in a manner that suggest coded transactions with the use of Landi Language and selective use of English numerals. Given this context, it was essential to examine whether the additions as made by Ld. AO were justified or not. In the present case, the onus was on assessee to prove the correctness of recorded transactions and establish their authenticity with verifiable evidences. In the present case, the assessee did not provide any corroborative evidence to prove that the figures were in thousands and not in Lacs. The only defense as offered is the argument that the dot after numerical figures had faded over time which Ld. AO rejected on the ground that no scientific or forensic examination was conducted to substantiate this claim. The pattern of entries suggests an intentional effort to disguise the actual financial magnitude of these transactions. The Ld. AO rightly pointed out that the nature of the parties involved including reputed business entities, suggest that the transactions were of significant value and could not reasonably be conducted in such small denominations. Such an action was correct in terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) holding that tax authorities are justified in drawing logical inference based on human probabilities. The circumstances as enumerated by Ld. AO would lead to a conclusion that the said transactions were carried out by the assessee and not by Shri Sachin Aggarwal who was merely a partner in M/s C.M. Jewellers. The assessee was engaged in money financing business. Further, the retraction has to be within a reasonable time. Finally, the addition of advances u/s 69 as well as addition of consequential interest was upheld. However, protective addition as made in the hands of Shri Sachin Aggarwal was deleted. 4.9 The additions of unexplained investment which was based on loose sheets marked as Annexure A-1 was also confirmed by applying the provisions of Sec.292C. The impugned transactions were found contained in documents as seized from the assessee’s own premises bearing specific details of payment received on sale of plots. Therefore, the additions of unexplained investments were also confirmed. 4.10 The legal ground qua mechanical approval u/s 153D was dismissed in the background of the fact that in central charges, all search and seizure assessments would be regularly supervised and monitored by the Range Heads. The AO and Range Head follow the instructions / guidelines of the Board for completion of assessment and the assessment order was finalized by Ld. AO after obtaining approval u/s 153D from the Range Head. The seized documents were part of the assessment records. The approval u/s 153D was accorded after due examination and verification by the Range Head. Further, the approval was in the nature of administrative power. The range head while examining the matter u/s 153D does not examine to adjudicate upon the rights or obligations of the assessee but only consider whether the AO has fulfilled the requirements of Sec.153A. This condition was duly satisfied in the present case. This legal ground was accordingly dismissed. However, no findings were rendered on the issue of non-availability of warrant at the time of search as contended by the assessee. Finally, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee is engaged in money lending business in its proprietorship concern namely M/s Nand Kishore Om Parkash. The assessee-group was searched on 21-03-2017. The assessee had filed regular return of income on 18- 09-2013 which attained finality in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) on 29-01-2016. Post-search action, in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee furnished return of income wherein Ld. AO made certain additions which have now been disputed before us. It could be seen that to cover up discrepancies of loose papers, cash etc., the assessee has offered additional income of Rs.15 Lacs during financial year 2016-17 which is contended to be sufficient surrender considering the contents of the loose sheets / documents / cash discrepancy etc.

10. The other two addition are based on entries found noted on loose sheets marked as Annexure A-1 containing 78 loose sheets. The entries at Page No.1 to 7 pertain to Project-1 whereas entries at Pages Nos. 26 to 31 are with respect to Project-2. During assessment proceeding, the assessee stated that the seized material was merely estimation of land development projects. It was pointed out that there was no plotting on land on the entire stretch of both the roads. The projects were at planning stage and did not materialize. The Ld. AO made filed enquiries which revealed that Project No.1 was not physically found by the field inspector. With respect to Project-2, it transpired that the said project was carried out on ancestral land owned by Shri Shiv Charan Singh. The land was sold to Shri Mewa Singh starting from May, 2016 and transfer was completed only on 01-08-2017 which is much after the date of search. The whole consideration was paid by Shri Mewa Singh through cheques only. Thereafter, Shri Mewa Singh plotted shops and sold the same through property dealer Shri Gurvinder Singh. The Ld. AO alleged that Shri Mewa Singh was man of no means to carry out such transactions. The investments were made by other persons including the assessee. The said conclusion is bereft of any concrete material on record. No linkage has even been established between Shri Mewa Singha and the assessee. The addition is merely on loose sheets without any corroboration of the entries. These entries are undated, unsigned and not in the handwriting of the assessee or his family members. The Ld. AO has merely assumed that such investment would have been made by the assessee in this AY without any material on record. No agreement or deed of sale, proof of payment, investment etc. has been found from the possession of the assessee. The Ld. AO is not able to link any actual transaction of payment or receipt by the assessee. There is no direct or indirect corroboration of conclusion of Ld. AO.

12. Since the impugned additions have been deleted into merits, delving into legal plea qua absence of satisfaction u/s 153D as raised by Ld. AR, has been rendered mere academic in nature and we see no fruitful reason to delve into the same. No other ground has been urged before us. The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18

13. In AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 &2017-18, Ld. AO has made addition of unexplained investment on similar lines based on entries found noted in Neelgagan Diary. In AYs 2012-13, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Ld. AO has made addition of consequential interest on loans on similar lines. The orders of lower authorities are identical. This being so, our adjudication as above, on both the issues, would mutatis mutandis apply to these appeals. The respective additions of unexplained investment and consequential interest income as made by Ld. AO stand deleted. Going into the legal grounds has been rendered merely academic in nature. The appeals for AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2016-17 stands partly allowed.

14. Remaining issues in Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 14.1 In this year, Ld. AO has made another addition of Rs.135 Lacs and Rs.10.43 Lacs on sale of plots. The addition of Rs.135 Lacs is based on entries found noted in Neelgagan Diary Annexure A-3, Page No.27 allegedly relating to sale of certain plots. The Ld. AO added two deficient zeros to the figures and alleged that the assessee made sale of Rs.135 Lacs which were added as unaccounted receipts in the hands of the assessee. 14.2 The addition of Rs.10.43 Lacs is based on Loose Sheets, Annexure A-1, Page Nos. 68 and 77 which were alleged to be relating to sale of plots. In these pages, the assessee was shown to have received sale consideration of Rs.10.43 Lacs which was added as unaccounted income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the additions against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 14.3 In view of our findings with respect to entries as found noted in Neelgagan Diary as well as on loose sheets qua unexplained investment and consequential interest income, addition of two zeros is to be disregarded. The notings of sale of land in Neelgagan Diary are undated and without description of the property. The same are mere scribbling in nature. Similarly, the entries on loose page nos. 68 & 77 are undated, without description of any property. There is no corroboration of any of these entries. Therefore, both these additions stand deleted. The corresponding grounds of appeal stand allowed. The appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed. Conclusion

15. All the appeals stand partly allowed. Order pronounced on 9th March, 2026.