ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU V. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

ITA 557/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Jammu against Smt. Anita Kapahi, concerning an addition of Rs. 2,05,44,000 made to the assessee's income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on a document impounded during a search and seizure operation, which was alleged to show discrepancies in the transaction values of a property purchase. The Ld CIT (A) deleted the addition, finding the document to be a 'dumb document' with no evidentiary value, as it was unsigned, undated, and not corroborated by any other evidence. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that suspicion alone cannot replace evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396625 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, S. Sivan Pillai vs. CIT, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Nishant Construction (P.) Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sant Lal, Commissioner of Income-tax-XIV vs. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT vs. KTMS Mohammad, Smt. Gurjeet Kaur vs. Income-tax Officer, C. S. Atwal vs. CIT, Ludhiana, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, K.P. Verghese vs ITO, CBI v. V.C. Shukla, Common Cause v. UOI
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Fair market value; Document seized; Documents seized; Capital Gains; Search and seizure; Loose papers
• Section: 143(3); 132; 131; 69; 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Jammu (Appellant) Vs. Smt. Anita Kapahi, 103, CA/D, Green Belt, Jammu-180001 J & K. [PAN: ADCPK 6700G] (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 19.03.2025 29.05.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19.07.2024 which has emanated from the order of the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle, Jammu passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 10.08.2021. 2 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the revenue in form 36 are as follows: “1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,05,44,000/- made by the assessing officer ignoring the contradiction in the statements of assessee and seller with regard to the seized document at annexure A3 page 66 impounded during the course of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act conducted in the case of Baniya Group of cases on 14.03.2019 based on which addition was made by the Assessing officer? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred deleting the addition of Rs. 2,05,44,000/- made u/s 69 by ignoring the fact that the particulars of purchase agreement seized during the course of search u/s 132 of the act substantially matched with the sale deed registered by the assessee? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. The brief facts emerging from the records are that the assessee is an individual and is associated with Baniya Group of Cases in which search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 14.03.2019. The assessee is engaged in construction business and is stated to be one of the directors and shareholder of Jammu Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Future Housing Infra Pvt. Ltd., respectively and the return of income was filed on 31.01.2020, declaring total income 3 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 of Rs.67.53 lacs under the head capital gains , which was ultimately assessed , with an addition of Rs.2.05 cores u/s 69 of the Act, on the basis of suspicion of alleged on money payment relating to purchase of a plot of land , information flowing from impounded document Annexure A – 3. 4. The assessee’s husband Mr. Anil Kapahi and her two sons Mr. Akhil Kapahi and Mr. Nikhil Kapahi are partners in a partnership firm namely M/s Kapahi Construction Company, and in course of surveyu/s 133A conducted at the premises of the partnership firm on 14th March, 2019, documents identified and marked as Annexure A-3 has been impounded, which has formed the basis of this addition of Rs. 2.05 crores, which is the subject matter of this appeal. 5. The nature and character of the impounded document has been described as a plane, unsigned, piece of white typed paper (not hand written) containing the name of one Mr. Abdul Hamid S/o Haji Fakardin of Distt. Jammu (as seller1st party ) and the name of Ms Anita Kapahi, buyer (2ndparty), containing details of plot size 21 kanals and 8 marlas , khasra no - 940 min , mutation no -1698 area chowadi, circle rate / kanal Rs.35,40,000, rateagreed / kanal – Rs.45,00,000 (2,35,000/marla ) , Total marla– 428 (21 kanals& 8 marlas ) , total amount – 428 x 2,25,000 > Rs.9,63,00,000. Cheque amount Rs.7,57,56,000 (As per circle rate). 4 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that she has purchased a plot of land with plot size of 21 kanals and 8 marlas at khasra no. 940 min., mutation no. 1698 area chowadi at a total price of Rs.7,57,56,000/- which was the set forth value as per the deed of conveyance(as well as the circle rate),the payment of which has been made through bank channel and reflected in bank accounts. However, the assessee denied having any knowledge of the contents of the impounded white sheet containing particulars of agreed rates and circle rates.On the other hand the AO alleged that the difference amount of Rs.2.05 cores, flowing from the figures contained in the impounded documents (agreed rates minus circle rates) must have been paid in cash by the assessee to the seller out of her unaccounted money. 7. The seller Mr. Abdul Hamid as appearing in the registered deed of convayance (the same name which is appearing in the impounded document) has been summoned u/s 131 and his deposition has been recorded on 19.04.2001, where he has categorically denied having received any payment in cash, from the assessee over and above, the sale consideration which has been received by cheque through bank channel. In support an affidavit has also been filed by Mr. Abdul Hamid, denying any cash receipts and also denying any knowledge of the very existence of the said piece of impounded document. 5 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 8. Similarly, the statement of the assessee was also recorded on 6th September, 2019, by the AO, where she also denied having paid any amount in cash in respect of the purchase of the said property. It was further submitted by her that the fair market value of the land on the date of registration has been rightly adopted by the Registration Officer and registration has been done at circle rate applicable, and there is neither any material on record nor any inquiry conducted by the AO to disbelieve the circle rate or the FMV, at which the property has been registered. 9. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and the Ld CIT (A) vide a detailed order considering all aspect of the matter has deleted the addition by observing that the addition of Rs.2.05 cores was made by the AO on the basis of Annexure- 3 (page 66 of impounded documents) which is just a typed piece of paper without any signature of anybody. He further observed that there is no mention of any cash payments on this paper and it simply mentioned circle rate at Rs.35.40 lacs per kanal and agreed rate at Rs.45 lacs per kanal. The piece of typed paper neither contains any signature nor any date and there is no evidence of actual execution of the said terms in between parties, by way of any agreement either registered or notarized. 10. Moreover, the said documents has been denied both by the assessee (buyer) and also by the seller, during the statements recorded on oath and the said document 6 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 was never referred to the DVO to ascertain FM value of the land. As such, according to the ld. first appellate authority, it is just addition based on suspicion and however strong it may be, suspicion cannot take the shape of evidence and as such he held that the addition has been made by the AO simply on the basis of presumption and has deleted the addition by observing as follows: (relevant portion reproduced) : “The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported at [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) [05-03-1959] held as under: \"Whether Tribunal should not base its findings on suspicions, conjectures, or surmises nor should it act on evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of that sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by Supreme Court-Held, yes\" The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 26 ITR 775held as under: \"Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922]-Assessment - Additions to income - Assessment year 1944-45-Whether though ITO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence on account of law, but in making assessment under section 23(3) of 1922 Act he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all - Held, yes - Whether where, on request of Tribunal, departmental representative had produced certain material, Tribunal should have given an opportunity to assessee to rebut such material and 7 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 should have also taken into account material produced by assessee on issue in question - Held, yes.\" The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of S. Sivan Pillai vs. CIT reported at [1958] 34 ITR 328 (Mad.) has held as under: \"During relevant assessment year assessee exported and also sold onions in open market at controlled price However ITO taking view that assessee must have sold goods in open market at price higher than controlled price made certain addition in assessee's income - In coming to said conclusion, ITO relied upon transactions entered into by another dealer who also had dealings in exporting onions Tribunal upheld ITO's order - Whether in absence of direct evidence showing that assessee did sell onions in excess of controlled price, ITO's estimate of excess receipt by assessee on sale of onions could not be affirmed Held, yes Whether, therefore, impugned addition made in assessee's income was to be set aside-Held, yes\" (i) Addition u/s 69 The AO has made addition in the hands of assessee u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It shall be important to analyze here the latest legal position regarding the applicability of provisions of Section 69 to the loose document seized during the course of search. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Nishant Construction (P.) Ltd. reported at [2019] 101 taxmann.com 180 (SC)has held as under. \"Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained money (On money) Assessee was engaged in construction and development of housing projects - It was subjected to survey operation during which certain documents were found and impounded - On basis of such documents, Assessing Officer came to conclusion that assessee had 8 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 received on-money from sale of flats He therefore, made certain addition to assessee's income Tribunal, however, deleted said addition on ground that there was no reliable or independent evidence to come to conclusion that assessee had accepted on-money for sale of constructed properties High Court upheld order passed by Tribunal - Whether, on facts, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed Held, yes [In favour of assessee]\" Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Sant Lal reported at [2020] 118 taxmann.com 432 (Delhi) has held as under: \"Since diary was neither found from premises of assessee nor was it in hand writing of assessee, in view of possibility of any third person writing name of any person at his sweet will, Tribunal held that assessee could not be put to any liability without corroboration but same was not done - Whether since revenue was not able to produce any cogent material nor any attempt or effort was made to gather or corroborate evidence, instant appeal could not be entertained Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee]” Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax-XIV vs. Vivek Aggarwal reported at [2015] 56 taxmann.com 7 (Delhi) has held as under: \"A search was carried out at assessee's premises in course of which Assessing Officer seized certain letters/e-mail - On basis of said documents, Assessing Officer made addition to assessee's income on account of undisclosed salary Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal deleted addition holding that in absence of any corroborative material to link such e-mail letter or its contents with assessee, inference that some additional income was earned by him by way of salary, was incorrectly drawn - Whether since document seized was both undated and unsigned and even taken at face value did not lead to further enquiry on behalf of Assessing 9 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Officer, Impugned order of Tribunal deleting addition was to be confirmed-Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee)\" Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. KTMS Mohammad [1997] 228 ITR 113 has held that \"In order to make assessment u/s 69A for undisclosed income, the assessee must not only be a person who is in possession of undisclosed income, but he should also be the owner of the same.\" (j) Addition made on basis of photocopy of an unregistered document On the issue of use of photocopy of unregistered documents while framing the assessment, the Ld. Jurisdictional Tribunal Bench of Amritsar in the case of Smt. Gurjeet Kaur vs. Income-tax Officer reported at [2022] 139 taxmann.com 192 (Amritsar - Trib.) has held as under. “Where Assessing Officer made additions to assessee's income on basis of an agreement to sale, however, revenue was only in possession of photocopy of agreement alleged to have been executed and assessee was able to prove that same agreement was an unregistered document, and assessee claimed to have sold land in question vide a registered sale deed, addition made to income of assessee under section 69, on basis of uncertified copy of an agreement to sell was not justified.\" (k) Value of unregistered document The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of C. S. Atwal vs. CIT, Ludhiana reported at [2015] 59 taxmann.com 359 (Punjab & Haryana) on the issue of importance of registered contract agreements has held as under: \"The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 has brought about a radical change in the rights flowing on the basis of agreements executed in part performance of the contract under section 53A of the 1882 Act. The 10 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 amendments have been made in section 53A of 1882 Act and sections 17 and 49 of the 1908 Act by amendment vide 2001 Act which stood enforced with effect from 24- 9-2001, and the words \"the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or in section 53A of 1882 Act have been omitted. Simultaneously, sections 17 and 49 of the 1908 Act have been amended clarifying that unless the document containing contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of 1882 Act is registered, it shall not have effect for purposes of section 53A of the 1882 Act. (Para 21]\" The jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana has clearly upheld the view that the registered document shall carry the legal backing rather than an unregistered photocopy of the document. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT Bench of Amritsar in the case of Smt. Gurjeet Kaur vs. Income-tax Officer reported in [2022] 139 taxmann.com 192 (Amritsar -Trib.) has held as under: Where Assessing Officer made additions to assessee's income on basis of an agreement to sale, however, revenue was only in possession of photocopy of agreement alleged to have been executed and assessee was able to prove that same was an unregistered document, and assessee claimed to have sold land in question vide a registered sale deed, addition made to income of assessee under section 69, on basis of uncertified copy of an agreement to sell was not justified Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta reported in [2024] 160 taxmann.com 723 (Delhi) has held as under: Assessing Officer based on said information issued reopening notice and made addition to income of assessee on account of purchase of said land from undisclosed sources - It was noted that entire foundation of addition was based on photocopy of 11 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 alleged agreement to sell and original copy of said document was not seen - Whether since there was no other evidence to support veracity of recitals made in aforesaid alleged agreement, impugned addition made to income of assessee was unjustified and was to be deleted-Held, yes [Paras 17 and 18] [In favour of assessee] (l) In light of these observations, it is evident that the addition of Rs. 2,05,44,000/-to the appellant's income lacks a sound legal and factual basis. On the basis of above discussion, it is held that the appellant has been able to rebut the presumption u/s 292C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is a matter of record that the payment of cash was denied by both the parties. This coupled with other facts discussed above, I am of the considered view that the addition is not sustainable. Therefore, this addition is deleted. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are allowed. 11. Now, the revenue is before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 12. The ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee is a director and shareholder of Jammu Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Future Housing Infra Pvt. Ltd. During the year under appeal, the assessee has declared income from long term capital gains amounting to Rs.67.53 lacs only, (without any income being declared either from Jammu Hotels Pvt. Ltd. or from Future Housing Infra Pvt. Ltd.)Referring to the impounded documents, the Ld DR submitted that the same has been found at the premises of the partnership firm M/s Kapahi Construction Company where the husband and both the sons of the assessee are partners, and the 12 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 contents of the said impounded documents is so clear and transparent that it refers to the transactions of purchase of plot of land made by the assessee (Anita Kapahi) from the seller Mr. Abdul Hamid. He further submitted that the contents of the loose paper regarding the plot size, khasrano., mutation no. and area chowadi, perfectly matches with the contents of the registered deed of conveyance. He further submitted that the circle rates and the cheques amount of the transaction also matches with the contents of the registered deed and bank statements and he argued that on the face of such matching particulars, there is no reason as to why the balance amount of Rs.2.05 cores ( which is the difference amount of the agreed rate and the sale rate) should not be considered as cash payments made to the seller , over and above, the amount disclosed by the assessee, and he submits that the addition made by the AO has been rightly done and the said addition should be sustained. 13. Per contra the Ld AR of the assessee relied on the order of the first appellate authority and retreated the same arguments that the entire addition has been made by the AO on suspicion on the basis of a dumb document, which is a just a typed piece of white paper, unsigned and undated containing particulars of plot number, Khaitan, area, etc containing circle rates and proposed agreed rates. He further submitted that to ascertain the truth the AO has summoned both the assessee (buyer in this case) and the seller (Sh Abdul Hamid) in course of assessment proceedings and recorded their statement on oath u/s 131 of the Act, and both of them has denied any payment 13 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 being made or received in cash , in respect of the above transaction of purchase and sale of the plot of land , over and above the amount of Rs.7,57,56,000/- , being transferred through bank channel. 14. He further pointed out that both the seller and buyer has filed sworn affidavits in support of their respective declaration, that they have never seen the said loose sheet of paper earlier and have no knowledge about its existence and has not entered into any cash transaction over and above the monetary transaction effected through registered sale deeds and evidenced by bank payments. 15. The Ld AR further submitted that, as per the guidelines contained in search and seizure manual issued vide paragraph (i) and (2) of F No 286/ 77/2007-IT(Inv. II) , issued by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 13/09/2007 , the loose single sheet of paper on the basis of which this addition has been made was never properly numbered and sealed and neither contains the signature of authorized persons, nor the signature of the witnesses and not even the signature of the assessee, as mandated by the CBDT seizure manual. It is further contended that during the course of search no marking was made on the said loose sheet and it contains signatures of office staffs only, (instead of signatures of the authorized persons, witnesses and the assessee) and as 14 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 such the said loose sheet is not a reliable document on the basis of which any addition could be made or sustained. 16. It has been further argued by the ld AR , that the unsigned and undated piece of typed paper does not contain any mention of any cash payment or any schedule of payments, and cannot be corroborated with any evidence whether the same has been executed on the same terms and the entire case has proceeded on the basis of assumption of understatement of investments and there is no finding that the assessee has invested more than what was recorded and it is just a presumption on the part of the AO , that on money has been paid in this transaction . 17. He further relied on the judgment of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of DCIT – Central Circle, Jammu vs M/s Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No 671 to 673 / ASR / 2014, order dated 22/03/2023, relating to Asst year 2009-10 and 2011-12, respectively, where in an almost identical case the tribunal held as follows: Relevant portion reproduced: “8. The Ld. DR for the department submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,12,44,640/- made by the assessing officer u/s 69 /69B of the IT Act,1961 by holding that the Documents i.e. MOU dated 22.01.2008 and supplement MOU dated 18.03.2008 which were found and seized during the time of search, though not signed by either of the parties, could not be taken as evidence of the payment of unaccounted money over and above the registration price of impugned land purchase, ignoring the detailed discussion of the same in the assessment order; that the Ld. CIT(A) is not right to 15 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 hold that various ikrarnamas, photocopies of which were found and seized during search viz. A-9 DNB-1 are collusive in nature, as claimed by the assessee, when these documents have actually been seized from the premises of the assessee itself; and that the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong to conclude that various documents found and seized at the time of search have no evidentiary value when the assessing officer has discussed in detail in para 05(a) to (h) of his assessment order dated 21.03.2014 that the same reflect the actual state of affairs of business transactions carried out by the assessee as compared to what is reflected in its books of accounts. He prayed that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), be set-aside and that of the AO be restored on merits although he has failed to file any rebuttal to the contention raised by the counsel in support of the impugned order that the MOU and supplement MOU were not signed by either of the parties or being not corroborated with supporting material evidence by the AO in the assessment proceedings and hence has no evidentiary value. 9. The defendant counsel for the assesse vehemently supported the impugned order, and contended that the unsigned MOU and Supplement MOU by either of the parties and being not corroborated with supporting material evidence by the AO in the assessment proceedings has no evidentiary value (APB, Pgs. 27-32). The documents as highlighted in the assessment order does not give any support to Assessing Officer's preliminary view of purchase consideration being at Rs. 11.55 Crore. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the documents seized as page 1 & 2 of A-2 DNR which records various payment made to Sh. Surjit Singh and all of these payments have been found recorded in the books of account of the appellant and verified accordingly during remand proceedings by the Assessing Officer. He prayed that the impugned order is passed by the Ld. CIT(A) discussing and analyzing the facts of all the documents seized during search and passed a well-reasoned order duly supported with the judgement of higher judicial forum and hence, he prayed that it may be sustained. 10. Heard rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order, written submissions and case law cited before us. It is admitted facts on record that the disputed seized MOU are unsigned documents by either of the parties to the agreement and therefore 16 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 cannot be said to be of any evidentiary value for the purpose of preliminary or final view of aforesaid sale consideration of 11.05 acre. The Assessing Officer in this pursuit has relied upon another supplementary agreement MOU dated 18.3.2008 which is again not signed by either of the parties therefore it cannot lend any credence to the first MOU as both are unsigned and therefore could be in the nature of evidence for the proposed consideration for purchase of land by appellant. The Assessing Officer further has relied upon document at 168 of A-9/DNB-1 which record details of part payment of Rs. 11,94,37,570/- and the same have been held by the Assessing Officer to be corroborating with the sale consideration recorded in the MOU at 11.55 Crore. This document has been shown by the appellant to be accounted for in its books of accounts as substantial payments out of the same have been made to specific parties through cheque and the same had been verified by the Assessing Officer as well during remand proceeding. Therefore, this document as highlighted in the assessment order does not give any support to Assessing Officer's preliminary view of purchase consideration being at Rs. 11.55 Crore. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the documents seized as page 1 & 2 of A-2 DNR which records various payment made to Sh. Surjit Singh and all of these payments have been found recorded in the books of account of the appellant and accordingly, verified during remand proceedings by the Assessing Officer. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) has stated that the Assessing Officer has further relied upon documents A-9 DNB-1 which reproduced various ikrarnamas, photo copies of which had been found and seized. Ikrarnams are between the intermediaries' i.e Sh. Surjit Singh & others and the original owners of the land. However, the Assessing Officer in his assessment order has erroneously recorded as sale deed where these are photo copies of ikrarnamas/agreement to sale. While arriving at the decision to delete the addition made based on presumption by the AO, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the various judgement of the Tribunals, Hon’ble High Courts and Apex Court as above. 12. It is evident from the above that the entire case has proceeded on the assumption that there was understatement of the investment based on unsigned and uncorroborated MOUs and supplementary MOUs, without a finding that the assessee invested more than 17 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 what was recorded in the books of account with supporting corroborative material evidence and such decision of the AO cannot be approved. In our view, Section 69B was wrongly invoked. The Section 69B cannot be invoked on the assumption that there was understatement of the investment, without a finding that the assessee invested more than what was recorded in the books of account.” 18. Before resting his arguments , the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that leaving aside all technicalities , of the matter , even if the impounded sheet of typed paper is closely examined , it is a matter of commonsense, that whoever has TYPED the information on the sheet , must have had the copy of the deed of conveyance before him because all the details regarding plot size, khasra no., mutation no. and area chowadi, etc, are correctly typed , which could not have been typed without the original being before him, whoever it might be, and the circle rate of the land transferred can only be obtained from the registration office ( as reflected in the ADSR computer system )whenever the deed is placed for registration ( or on obtaining query on the basis of draft deed of conveyance against payment of fees ), which is only possible when the deed is complete for presentation. He further analyzed, that even for the sake of argument ( without admitting and without any prejudice ) that if at all any on money is actually paid , then the said payment must have been made before registration of document date (and not post registration in any case), and no man in his right sense of mind will preserve a loose sheet , much after the date of registration of the deed of conveyance which is already registered on 18 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 6th June, 2018,more so, when legal title to the property and the possession is already transferred and as such he argued that the preponderance of human probability also suggests, that no such document ever existed and that is the reason as to why it does not bear the signatures of the authorized persons, witnesses and the assessee). 19. Thereafter, he further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of K.P. Verghese vs ITO 131 ITR 597(SC), to submit that in the instant case there is no evidence to show that the assessee has paid on money for purchase of land. There is nothing to show that the contents on the loose sheet has been acted upon as per the terms stipulated therein. There is no trace of any cash payments neither in the registered deed sale, nor with the seller or in any other documents found in course of search / survey. It is also not a case that the market value of the landed property bought by the assessee (buyer), is actually more than the amount stipulated in the deed of conveyance and registration has been done on circle rates applicable which are always determined on the basis of the FMV of the area and locality. 20. He also relied upon the coordinate bench decision in the case of ITO vs Surjit Singh order dated 20/06/2023, in ITA No 434/ASR/2016, to submit that additions cannot be sustained on the basis of unsigned agreement or MOU ( in this case it is unsigned loose sheet of paper). 19 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 21. As such the Ld AR submitted that in absence of any infirmity or perversity in the findings of the Ld CIT (A), to the facts on record, he prays for upholding the order of the first appellate authority. 22. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record. In the instant case before us the addition is made by the AO on the basis of a loose typed sheet of paper impounded u/s 133A of the Act, from the business premises of a partnership firm (in which the husband of the assessee and her two sons constitute the partnership). 23. The loose sheet of paper which is a TYPED document (not handwritten), unsigned and without any date, contains certain particulars regarding measurements and details of its location and identity of a plot of land, which has been purchased by the assessee from a seller (one Sk Abdul Hamid), duly registered vide deed of conveyance executed on 6th June, 2018,at applicable circle rates (set forth deed value being same), and payments made through bank channel. So far there is no dispute. 24. The addition of the AO was based assumption of on money payments, which in turn was based on information contained in the second part of the impounded sheet which contains figures pertaining to agreed rate and circle rate in respect of the aforesaid sales transaction, though the same is undated and unsigned and naturally 20 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 devoid of any so called witness, and cannot be termed as an agreement by any stretch of imagination. 25. In order to verify its authenticity, the AO has conducted verification and inquiry by summoning and examining both the parties (seller and the buyer ) for examination on oath , in order to determine the veracity of the contents of impounded sheet where both the parties appeared and recorded their respective statements, and totally denied of entering into any cash transaction in between themselves other than the transaction of payments effected through bank channel, and also pleaded ignorance of the very existence of the said TYPED document and naturally on the face of such denial the allegation of on money either paid / payable , becomes infructuous and the impounded typed sheet of paper is reduced to the status of a ‘dumb document” . 26. Moreover, in absence of any corroborative material and evidence on record and finding that such material particulars contained in impounded document (unsigned and undated) has indeed materialized into transactions of identical value as recorded in the typed sheet giving rise to income of the assessee which had not been disclosed in regular books of account, is to be disregarded for the purposes of assessments. 21 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 27. At this stage we refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court to understand the legal position of the matter and we refer to the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla 1998 taxmann.com 2155 (SC) popularly known as Jain Hawala Case wherein it was held that any presumption of transaction on some vague, tenuous and dubious entries in a sheet of paper is not rational and hence legal unless there is corroboration by corresponding entry in regular accounts of both the parties to the transaction. 28. In this case it was held that entries in Jain Notebooks held on facts admissible u/s 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but file containing loose sheets of papers are not ''book\" and hence entries therein not admissible u/s 34 of the Act, 1872. 29. Further it was also held in this case that entries in books of account shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. Entries even if relevant are only corroborative evidence. Independent evidence as to trustworthiness of those entries is necessary to fasten the liability. In view of these facts it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that entries made in the Jain Hawala diaries are under Section 34, but truthfulness thereof not proved by any independent evidence. It was also held in this case that \"books\" ordinarily mean a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as \"book\" for they can be easily detached and replaced. The Supreme Court further went on to state that 22 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 even correct and authentic entries in books of account cannot without independent evidence of their trustworthiness fix a liability upon a person. 30. The above view further gathers reinforcement from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause v. UOI, [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 popularly known Sahara dairies and Aditya Birla diaries case. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the judgment rendered in case of V.C. Shukla (supra), laid down the following principles:- (i) Entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. It is only where the entries are in the books of account regularly kept, depending on the nature of occupation, that those are admissible; (ii) As to the value of entries in the books of account, such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are relevant and admissible, and that they are only corroborative evidence. Even then independent evidence is necessary as to trustworthiness of those entries which is a requirement to fasten the liability; (iii) The meaning of account book would be spiral note book/pad but not loose sheets; 23 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 (iv) Entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate and in absence of such evidence no relief can be given to the party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another; (v) Even if books of account are regularly kept in the ordinary course of business, the entries therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is not enough merely to prove that the books have been regularly kept in the course of business and the entries therein are correct. It is further incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they were in accordance with facts; (vi) The Court has to be on guard while ordering investigation against any important Constitutional functionary, officers or any person in the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material. When the material on the basis of which investigation is sought is itself irrelevant to constitute evidence it is not admissible in evidence. 31. As such, being enlightened by the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex court referred to above, and also to the observation of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of K. P. Verghese vs ITO 131 ITR 597(SC),discussed above (paragraph-19),we hold that 24 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 in the instant case since the impounded loose sheet of paper was undated, unsigned , typed (without anybody’s handwriting), naturally without witness, without any acceptable narration and did not bear the signature of the parties or any other party, they were in the nature of dumb document, having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee, and as such we hold that no addition can be made by AO on grossly inadequate material or rather no material at all and as such the addition made by the AO on the basis of such loose sheets , cannot be sustained and as a result we uphold the order of the Ld CIT ( A ) on this issue , deleting the addition . 32. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 29.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Krinwant Sahay) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order "