CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AJIPUR

ITA 1054/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeal by Chandra Mohan Badaya against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur, which upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained investments in properties. The properties in question were agricultural land and a plot of land at Chaksu, for which the assessee had made payments recorded in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had rejected the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds, leading to the additions. However, the Tribunal found that the investments were recorded in the books and the income against which the investments were made was also recorded, thus not warranting the additions under Section 69.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472777 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANOOP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S. L. GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 139(1); 68; 69; 133A

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 Chandra Mohan Badaya 178, Surya Nagar, Taron Ki Koot, Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT Central Circle, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEPPB8451D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Gupta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 29/01/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 12/02/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The present appeal is because the assessee dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur -4 dated 19.06.2024 [here in after ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2013-14. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arise as against the order dated 30.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Central Circle-02, Jaipur. 2 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 1. The Ld. CIT Appeal AO has erred on fact law in law in upholding the addition of Rs.4,31,000/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of agricultural land without considering the fact that the payment made by post dated cheque as mentioned in the registry but subsequently paid in cash on the date of cheque and cheque was not cleared. The payment was duly recorded in the books of accounts. 1.1 The Ld. CIT Appeal has further erred on fact and in law in upholding the above addition even though no incriminating document regarding alleged unexplained payment in cash was found in search. 2. The Ld. CIT Appeal has erred on fact law in law in upholding the addition of Rs.1,37,500/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of plot of land at Chaksu without considering the facts that the payment is duly made by cheque and recorded in the regular books of accounts. 2.1 The Ld. CIT Appeal has further erred on fact and in law in upholding the above addition even though no incriminating document regarding alleged unexplained payment in cash was found in search. 3. The appellant prays your honor's indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any of the ground of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that there was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.07.2016 of which the assessee is one of the group member covered u/s 132. Consequent to the search notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee filed the return of income as originally filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 8,00,850/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. AO made addition of Rs. 4,31,000/- on account of unexplained investments in the purchase of land 3 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT for an amount of Rs. 1,37,500/- as unexplained investments in purchase of plot of land at Chaksu. The relevant observations of the Assessing Officer while making the addition reads as under:- 7.14. SCN no Query no. 15: The assessee has been found indulged in purchase of immovable properties in his prop. concern namely M/s A. R. Properties & Colonizers as well as sister concerns namely M/s Fortune Real Estates and M/s Laxmi Kripa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly the assessee vide show cause notice dated 01-10- 2018 asked to furnish the source of investment. In the reply the assessee submitted that \"In Point No. 15 of the show cause notice details of various properties purchased by the assessee and his concerns are noted. All these properties are duly recorded in regular books of accounts for which the conveyance deed is enclosed. The source of purchase of these properties is reflected in the books of accounts produced herewith and these properties are duly reflected in books of accounts of the related person. Copy of relevant ledger account enclosed herewith\" The reply of the assessee considered however same is found partly correct and investment in following immovable properties not found explained which is discussed as under: (a) Agriculture land Khasra No 1726, Village Badli, Patwar Halka Badli, Kothun, Teh. Chaksu, Jaipur: This land was purchased by the assessee on 30-07-2012 relevant to AY 2013-14 from Shri Ramsawroop. As per the sale deed payment of Rs. 4,31,000/- was paid through cheque and cash. The detail of which as under: pSd ua@udn fnukad jkf'k cSad udn 06-03-2012 81]000@& 906955 27-12-2012 1]17]000@& bUVhxzy vjcu dkW&vkijsfVo Csakd fy0’kk[kk nhukukFk th dk jkLrk] t;iqj 906956 27-05-2013 1]16]000@& mDr 906957 27-10-2013 1]17]000@& mDr dqy 4]31]000@& However on verification the assessee could not furnished copy of bank statement of Integral Urban Corporative Bank limited, Jaipur from which the payment has been shown in the sale deed. Hence, it is quite evident that no such 4 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT payment has been paid by the assessee through cheque as mentioned in the sale deed and all the transaction was paid through cash only and the detail mentioned in the sale deed is nothing but a coloring device to dupe the Department. Hence, the investment to the extent to Rs. 431000/- has been made by the assessee from his undisclosed income on the date of registration of sale deed i.e. 30-07-2012 and same is undisclosed investment of the assessee u/s 69 of the IT Act for AY 2013-14. (b) Plots at Surendra Nagar, Chaksu: The assessee has also purchased immovable property at plot no. 10, Surendre Nagar, Chaksu from smt. Bhagvati Saini in his prop. concern A.R. Properties and Colonizers through a agreement dated 12-11-2012 for the consideration of Rs. 137500/-. However, on perusal of bank statement it is noticed that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 29-10-2012 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 1-11-2012 in the bank account just before the payment of Rs. 55000/-, Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 27500/- to the seller on 09-11- 2012 and 12-11-2012. Since, the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposited in the bank before payment to acquire the aforesaid property. Hence the same is held a unexplained investment of Rs. 137500/- u/s 69 of the I.T. Act for AY 2013-14. In view of the above total sum of Rs. 568500/- (Rs. 431000/- plus Rs. 137500/-) is held undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act for AY 2013-14. 4. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: Finding of ld. CIT(A) on unexplained of Rs. 4,00,000/- In the present case, the only logical conclusion which can be drawn is that the cheques were mentioned in the immovable property deed only as a disguise and actually the payment was done in cash either before or the time of transaction itself. The entries in the books of accounts have been made only to cover up in a much later part of the time what has already happened. Such entries are rejected and accordingly the books of accounts are also rejected. Even in the assessment order the explanation of the appellant regarding the books of accounts was not accepted. However since such payment is not disclosed in the books of accounts at the time of transaction, the natural corollary of the same is that the payment 5 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT was done out of undisclosed sources. The sources are unexplained and the explanation submitted by the appellant is found to be unbelievable as discussed above in detail. Thus the investment is unexplained and rightly taxed by the Id. AO u/s 69 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed. Finding of ld. CIT(A) on unexplained of Rs. 1,37,500/- Even though it is held in the assessment order that the cash deposits are unexplained, surprisingly even in the appeal proceedings the appellant has not tried to explain the sources of said cash deposits. Further on the issue, the appellant has not submitted the copy of cash book for the period. It is also not verifiable whether the entries of cash deposit in bank account are recorded in the cash book or not. Further, from where the cash came with the appellant is also concealed by the appellant. The status of the books of accounts has already been discussed in the earlier ground of appeal wherein these books have been found to be unreliable and have been rejected. In view of the above discussion the sources of the payment of the property in question remain unexplained as the banking channel payment is merely a layer as the sources are from the cash which was deposited in the bank account immediately before the making of these cheque payments by the appellant. Accordingly, the addition made in the assessment order is hereby upheld and the appeal of the appellant on the issue is hereby dismissed. 5. Aggrieved from that finding of ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter before this Tribunal on the grounds as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee he submitted that on the one hand revenue states that the source of investments made by the assessee is out of the cash deposited by the assessee. On the other hand, the investments so made is taxed, thus, when the investments is duly reflected in the books of accounts. The 6 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. If at all revenue intends to tax the said cash as unexplained money. The same can be added u/s 68 of the Act but the investments so reflected in the books of accounts cannot be added. Merely on the reason, that the assessee has deposited cash into the bank account by the property to support the contention so raised. The Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the written submissions and paper book. The written submission so filed reads as under : Facts: The appellant is engaged in the business of jewelry, property dealings, and financing. A search and seizer action u/s 132 of Income Tax Act 1961 and/or survey action 133A of the Act was carried out by Income Tax Department on 28- 07-2016. During assessment proceeding u/s 153A, a detailed quarry letter dated 01-10-2018 issued on basis of documents found in such action for complete block period relevant to AY 2011-12 to 2017-18. For the assessment year 2013-14 the query mainly related to source of property shown in books of accounts and document as per details of property submitted by appellant vide raised and duly replied with all evidence. The ld A.O however added u/s 69 as undisclosed investments for purchases of two property amounting Rs 431000/- and 137500/- alleging source of source could not verified even these properties recorded in books of accounts and payment is verifiable from books of accounts maintained by the appellant. CIT appeal also upheld the addition against witch this appeal before your honor. Our submission: GOA 1: 1.1 The CIT Appeal is erred in law and against the fact in upholding the addition Rs 431000 for purchases of Agricultural land at Khasra no 1726, Village Badi, Patwar halka, Tah Chaksu. The fact is that the assessee purchases the said land at cost Rs 431000 from Shri Ramswaroop Gurjar which recorded in regular books of accounts and kept as stock in trade and shown in purchases in trading account. When the transaction of purchases found entered in regular books of account maintained in double entry system, question of non verification of sourse 7 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT does not arise. The fact is verifiable from following document attached herewith as submitted during course of assessment proceeding: • Copy of conveyance deed for purchases of land(page 1-7) • Ledger account of purchases in books includes purchases of this land at cost 431000(page8) • ledger account of seller Sri Ram Swaroop Gurjar with details of payment made against purchases in cash(page9) • Copy of cash book of relevant period for verification of payment made accounted in regular books(page 10-11) • ITR,Balance sheet and trading and profit and loss account, capital account.(Page 14-20) 1.2 The ld A.O made addition for cost of this property alleging unexplained investment in purchases of agricultural land due to no cheque mentioned in deed encased. However the fact which clearly explained during course of assessment proceeding are that at the time of execution of sale deed, the assesse given post dated cheque and mentioned in deed (page 4) but later on the buyer has returned the cheque and paid it by cash. The cash payment has been duly recorded in books of accounts which are verifiable from the relevant page of cash book submitted during course of hearing(page 10-11). When cash payment is duly verifiable from books of accounts submitted during course of hearing out of regular books which found in order than how the investment could be unexplained arbitrarily by A..O only on ground that given cheque has not honored in bank. 1.3 The ld CIT Appeal upheld the action of A.O. with by taking hypnotical view with creating doubt on transaction recorded books without without having any report of any defect in books of accounts. He also referred various case law which are having different fact where transaction not recorded in books of account. Finding that no defects were pointed out and the books of accounts have been accepted, the assessee having given the explanation which was plausible explanation which stands verified in inquiry by the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be rejected arbitrarily by indulging into surmises. 1.4 Section 69 of the Income tax Act 1961 states that “Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year”. Thus by reading the bare ACT there is essential condition that assesse made investment which are not recorded in the books of accounts, if any, maintained by him for any source of income. However in this case it is undisputed fact that the transaction duly recorded in books of account and no contrary evidence found by ld A.O during course of hearing hence there is no question addition u/s 69 arises. 1.5 The ld CIT appeal further erred in law in upholding addition made for alleging unexplained investment without considering the fact that the issue raised by A.O is 8 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT from the list of investment has been provided by the assesse himself and no incriminating document regarding alleged unexplained payment in cash was found in search. GOA.2: Addition Rs 137500/- for purchases of plot of Surendra Nagar, Chaksu: 2.1 The CIT Appeal is erred in law and against the fact in upholding the addition Rs 137500 for purchases of property at plot no 10 Surender Nagar, Chaksu from Smt. Bhagwati Saini in proprietary concern of assesse M/S A.R. Properties and colonizers through agreement dated 12-11-2012 at cost Rs 137500 and payment of which has been made by account payee cheque and these cheque encased as under: 09-11-2012 PNB 12-11-2012 PNB 17-12-2012 PNB 55000 55000 27500 Copy of account of seller and bank account of relevant period submitted(page 12- 13 ) The ld A.O made addition without considering this facts arbitrarily. The ld A.O further alleged that the source could not verified on considering that the assesse has deposited Rs 150000/- on 29-10-2012 and Rs 100000 on 1-11-2012 in bank account before the payment of Rs 55000/-.Rs 55000 and Rs 27500/-. The argument of ld A.O considering the payment unverified is baseless as first of all the payment has been made by cheque and recorded in regular books of account and bank statement, secondly the cash deposit in bank are separate transaction of different day and different amount and the cash deposit duly recorded in books of account and cash book produced during course of hearing which found in order. 2.2 That the transaction is recorded in regular books of accounts and kept as stock in trade and shown in purchases in trading account and in balance sheet in stock(page 14-20). As submitted in ground no 1 in detail, once the transaction duly recorded in books of account and no contrary evidence found by ld A.O during course of hearing there is no question addition u/s 69 arises. Hence no addition can be made. As submitted above your honor is requested to kindly accept the appeal and delete the addition made. 5.1 To support the contention so raised in the written submission ld. AR of the assessee filed a paper books containing following evidences : S.No. Particulars Page No. Before AO/CIT(A) 1 Copy of sale deed from Ramswaroop 1-7 2 Copy of purchases account 8 3 Copy of account of Ramswaroop 9 9 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT 4 Copy of cash book of relevant period of payment against purchases of land fromm Ramswaroop 10-12 5 Copy of account of Bhagwati 13 Copy of bank account of relevant period of payment made to Bhagwati 14 Copy of ITR,Computation, balance sheet, profit and loss account 15-20 Copy of relevant page of show cause notice by A.O 21 6. The ld. AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the profit and loss account filed in the paper book wherein purchase of Rs. 22,19,680/- was dully recorded. The relevant profit and loss is extracted herein below. 10 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT 7. The above purchase break up also filed by the assessee by filing the purchase account which reads as under: 11 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT Considering the evidence so placed on record, the addition is required to be deleted. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities and vehemently argued that source of investments made by the assessee is the cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account and therefore, the investments so made by the assessee is correctly added in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investments and thereby, the ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities praying therein to dismiss the appeal of assessee. The ld. DR also filed a detailed report of the ld. AO dated 24.01.2025 on the appeal filed by the assessee commenting on the grounds raised by the assessee. The report of the ld. AO reads as under : 12 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT Sub:- In the appeal matter pending before the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Sh. Chandra Mohan Badaya Jaipur (PAN:-AEPPB8451D), ITA No. 1054/JPR/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14 - regarding Sir, Kindly refer to your good office letter no. 987dated 13.01.2025 on the above mentioned subject. The requisite comments are as under: The Ground of appeal (i) The Ld.CIT Appeal and AO has erred on fact law in law in upholding the addition of Rs.4,31,000/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of agriculture land without considering the fact that the payment made by post dated cheque as mentioned in the registry but subsequently paid in cash on the date of cheque and cheque was not cleared. The payment was duly recorded in the books of accounts. Comments of A.O -Agriculture land Khasra No 1726, Village Badli, Patwar Halka Badli, kothun, Teh. Chaksu, Jaipur: This land was purchased by the assessee on 30-07-2012 relevant to AY 2013-14 from Shri Ramsawroop. As per the sale deed (Paper book Page no 5)payment of Rs. 4,31,000/- was paid through cheque and cash. The detail of which as under: The assessee has claimed that payments through cheques mentioned in sale deed were not actually made through bank account but made in cash and in this regard the assessee has furnished copy of cash book. The assessee has furnished the copy of ledger account of Ramswaroop (paper book page no.9). From the ledger account of Ramswaroop Gurjar, it is seen that the purchase 13 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT was done on the date of 30.07.2012, however the payments have been done much later. Payment of Rs. 1,17,000 is shown by the assessee on the date of 27-12-2012 which is the after a period of 5 months from the date of purchase. Further the payment of Rs. 1,16,000 is shown by the appellant on the date of 09-05-2013 which is after a gap of more than 9 months from the date of purchase of land. Final payment of Rs. 1,17,000 has been shown by the appellant on the date of 27.10.2013 which is after a gap of 15 months after the date of purchase of the property. These are very unlikely and natural and improbable way of payments. Firstly, why the purchaser would return the cheques? The appellant is completely silent on that. Secondly, even if the purchaser is returning the cheques, in the normal scenario he would have insisted to take the complete cash payment immediately at the time of returning of cheques otherwise there is no security left with him and further there is no reason why he should delay the receipt of payment. The appellant has submitted the cash book of Dec. 2012(paper book page no. 10) which is having 12 entries & March 2012 (paper book page no. 11) which is having 6 entries. The appellant has shown an opening balance of Rs. 10,05,857/-as on 01.12.2012 and Rs 4,43,082/-on 01.03.2012 however the rearenomeans to find out whether this is genuine or not and what kind of transactions are shown in the cash book in the earlier months as the complete cash book is not submitted by the appellant for the year. The books of accounts were prepared by the appellant after the scarch and seizure action and are not audited. Further the appellant has not maintained such kind of ledger or cash books on a regular basis for all the years. Therefore, genuineness of the extract of cash book furnished by assessee reflecting cash payment made to Sh. Ramswaroop Gurjar is not proved and the sources of payments remains unexplained and the explanation submitted by the appellant is not acceptable. (ii) The Ld.CIT(A) has further erred on fact and in law in upholding the additions of Rs.1,37,500/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of plot of land at Chaksu without considering the facts that the payment is duly made by cheque and recorded in the regular books of accounts. Comments of A.O. The assessce made purchases of property at plot no 10 Surender Nagar, Chaksu fiom Smt. Bhagwati Saini in proprietory concem of assessee M/S A.R. Properties and colonizers through agreement dated 12-11-2012 at cost Rs 137500. The assessee claimed that payment has been made by account payee cheque and these cheque were en-cashed as under: 09-11-2012 PNI 55000 12-11-2012 INR 55000 14 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT 17-12-2012 PNB 27500 Copy of account of seller and bank account of relevant period submitted byappellant (Paper book page no.13& 13) Appellant submitted bank statement only for transaction period. As on 01.11.2012 opening balance is Rs. 1,79,004 82/- but assessee has not given earlier bank statement so as to verify the source of this payment However, it is noticed on perusal of order of Ld.CIT(A) that it is found from the bank statement that the appellant deposited cash of Rs.1,50,000 on the date of 29.10.2012 and the closing bank balance on the dite of 02.11 2012 is nearly the same which is Rs. 1,56,001. Then again, the appellant deposited cash of Rs. 1,00,000 on the date of 08.11.2012 and the closing balance as per bank statement is Rs. 2,56,001. Then out of these, the appellant made a cheque payment of Rs: 1,10,000 (two each of Rs. 55,000 on the date of 09.11.2012 and 12.11.2012) for the property. li is clear that the source of the payment for the property is from the cash deposited in the bank account a few days before the payment was made by the appellant to the seller of the property. Thus payment from the bank account is only a layering inserted for the cash which was deposited in the bank account. Indirectly the payment has been made by the appellant out of the cash which was deposited in the bank account. The assessee has not explained the source of cash deposit in the bank account, from which payment was made through bank account. Therefore, the source of payment made by assessee through bank account is not explained and claim of the assessee is not found acceptable. Report submitted for kind perusal and necessary action. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Ground no. 1, 1.1, 2 & 2.1 raised by the assessee challenges the addition so made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is required to be deleted based on its merits and legality as to whether the addition can be made without finding out of any incriminating material during the search regarding the investment so made by the assessee. The facts of the case have already been discussed herein above and the same are not repeated 15 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT to avoid the duplication. The bench that the contention of the ld. AO and that of the ld. CIT(A) was that while making the investment in the property the assessee has deposited the cash into the bank account and that is why the investment made by the assessee was considered as unexplained investment. The investment so made is duly reflected in the accounts of the assessee as stated herein above and is supported by an entry passed in the books of accounts. The income against which the assessee made an investment is duly recorded in the books of accounts which were not disputed and therefore, disputing the investment merely on the grounds that the assessee has deposited cash into the bank account as the immediate source of making the investment. If the revenue really considered the income as unexplained that they could have made the addition as unexplained credit but once the credit is not considered as unexplained the investment so made from the entry passed in the books of account cannot be added u/s. 69 as unexplained investment. Before us also the ld. AO did not dispute the fact that the assessee has paid the money through banking network but disputed the fact that the assessee deposited cash into the bank account before giving the cheque for investment. The ld. AO did not offer the comment as to the source of credit already reflected in the books of account if at all addition is required to be made it should have been made 16 ITA No. 1054/JP/2024 Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT for the credit and not the subsequent action of making the investment out of the credit reflected in the accounts. Thus, once the investment is duly recorded the same cannot be considered as an unexplained investment. Based on this observation ground no. 1, 1.1, 2 & 2.1 raised by the assessee are allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 12/02/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sh. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1054/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "