D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1), KOLKATA V. PREM LAL JAIN, KOLKATA

ITSSA 73/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) appealing against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the grounds of unexplained cash and other income found during a search operation at the premises of Prem Lal Jain. The Tribunal examined the documents seized during the search and found that the same transactions were recorded in multiple documents, leading to double additions. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent was acting as a finance broker, facilitating loans and earning brokerage, rather than engaging in the cash transactions himself.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829625 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Kolkata
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: BIREN V. SAVLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 11, PCIT vs. Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd., CIT, KOLKATA vs PRAMOD SHARMA, Tara Devi Goenka vs. CIT, Vivek Kumar Kathotia vs ITO, Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt CIT, Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, Asstt CIT v. Omprakash & Co., CIT v. D.D. Gears Ltd, ITA NOS. 6309/MUM/2019 DCIT-Central Circle- 8(4) vs. Mis. Ashok R Ruia
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIRTUE OF PRESUMPTION UNDER
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Unexplained expenditure; Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Source of fund; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Bogus
• Section: 142(1); 132; 68; 69; 69C

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2020-21 DCIT, CC-3(1), Kolkata……………….………...............…….……Appellant vs. Prem Lal Jain……………………………………......……...…..…..Respondent 44/2A, Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Hazra, Kol- 700019. [PAN: ACVPJ2348D] Appearances by: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : December 02, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 13, 2026 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: Both the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 20.01.2025 & 18.09.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) respectively. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common and relate to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. First of all, IT(SS)A No.72/Kol/2025 is taken as lead case for adjudication. 02. At the outset, the We observe from the appeal folder that IT(SS)A No.72/Kol/2025filed by the revenue with a delay of 23days. The revenue has filed petition for condonation of the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 2 delay. After considering the reasons cited for condonation of delay in the said petition, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit. IT(SS)A No.72/Kol/2025– 03. The revenue has challenged the impugned order by raising the following grounds of appeal: 04. The brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee for the relevant assessment year filed return of income on 31.12.2021 declaring income of Rs.5,95,300/-. A search was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 13.1.2021 and the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings relied on the seized papers marked as PLJR/01 and Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 3 JGPO/01 and JGO/1 seized during the search operation for which , no explanation was received from the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the assessee was holding cash for the entire group or entities. Thereafter, statutory notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) was issued to the assessee and the evidences and supporting documents were submitted. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and made addition of Rs.31,48,220/- on the ground that the assessee could not explain the cash found in the course of search. 05. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue deleting the addition of Rs.31,48,220/- made by the Assessing Officer after taking into account the submissions and contentions of the assessee by observing and holding as under: “This agitates against the action of the Ld. AO in adding back Rs.31,48,220/- being the cash found at the in the course of search ignoring the explanation filed by the appellant. During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant has submitted that the total cash found in the group was Rs.31,48,220/- whereas the total cash balance of the entire group concerns of Jain Group was Rs.72,83,790/- as on the date of search. The appellant has submitted details of cash balance of all group concerns from where it was observed that the total closing cash balance of all group concerns was Rs.72,83,790/-. Even otherwise, it is observed that in the premises located at 67C, Ballygunge Circular Road, which is the residential premise of the appellant, Shri Prem Lal Jain and his family members, Ms. Pramila Jain, Shri Shrayans Jain, Shri Rishi Jain & Ms. Surbhi Jain cash was found to the tune of Rs.16,81,000/-. As per the statement of Shri Rishi Jain recorded on 14.01.2021, in such premises, he has stated on oath that the cash balance of various entities andindividuals, associated with the group as on 14.01.2021 was Rs.30,41,923/-, out of which Rs.14,00,000/- was kept at his office and remaining was kept at his residence i.e. 67C, Ballygunge Circular Road. The amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was seized from 44/2A, Hazra Road, the office premises of Jain Group. This statement of Shri Rishi Jain was accepted by the investigating Officer at 67C, Ballygunge Circular Road, and the cash found to the tune of Rs.16,81,100/- was duly returned to the appellant. This itself explains that the cash found in both the premises is out of the cash in hand of various entities of Jain Group as on 14.01.2021 which was duly recorded by various entities of Jain Group in their books. The action of the Ld. AO in adding an amount of Rs.31,48,220/-, therefore, cannot be sustained and stands deleted. This ground is allowed.” Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 4 06. The DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition despite the fact that the cash was found during the course of search and could not be explained. On the other hand , the learned AR submitted that as regards the cash found in the course of search, for which addition of Rs. 31,48,220/- was made by the Ld AO ,in fact out of the total cash balance as on the date of search on 14.1.2021 was Rs. Rs. 72,83,790/- of the entire group. The issue of cash balance as on the date of search came up for consideration before the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal in the case of said Jain Group Projects who considered and accepted the said cash balance as on the date of search. In that case the case balance was about 4 lakhs and the difference was added back by the AO. The said order has become final. Hence there can be no dispute that the cash balance of group which was Rs. 72,83,790/- and the cash found was thus fully explained. Therefore Ld. CIT(A) following his order in the said case was fully justified in deleting the addition vide page 19 of his order. The copy of decision of CIT(A) in Jain group projects is available in the paper book. The learned AR therefore prayed that the appellate order may kindly be upheld on this issue. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 5 07. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) noted that as per the statement of Shri Rishi Jain recorded on oath on 14.01.2021, the aggregate cash balance of various entities and individuals who were associated with the group was Rs.30,41,923/- and out of which Rs.14,00,000/- was kept at his office and remaining was kept at his residence i.e. 67C, Ballygunge Circular Road and during the search, the said amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was seized from the office premises of Jain Group and the statement of Shri Rishi Jain was accepted by the investigating Officer and the cash was duly returned to the assessee. We note that the cash found in the course of search for which addition of Rs. 31,48,220/- was made by the Ld AO while the group total cash balance as on the date of search on 14.1.2021 was Rs. Rs. 72,83,790/-. We also note that the issue of cash balances as on the date of search came up for consideration before the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal in the case of said Jain Group Projects who considered and accepted the said cash balance as on the date of search. The said order has become final and hence there can be no dispute that the cash balance of group was Rs. 72,83,790/- on the date of search and the cash found was thus explained. We note that Ld. CIT(A) following his order in the said case deleted the addition. In view of the above facts , we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly we uphold the same by dismissing the ground no. 1 in the revenue appeal. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 6 08. In ground Nos.2 & 3, the revenue challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.3,09,18,771/- and Rs.7,09,39,606/- by ld CIT(A) made by the AO on the ground of cash receipts and cash payments recorded in impounded document JGO/01. Similarly, vide Ground No.4, the revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 26,20,85,298/- and Rs.4,03,13,997/- as made by the AO on the basis of seized documents PLJR/1 and JGPO/1. 09. The facts in brief are that during the course of search the search team found and impounded documents with identification marked as PLJR/01 and JGPO/01 and JGO/1. The Ld AO also made additions of the amount of total transactions recorded in two papers seized under identification mark PLJR/01 of Rs. 13,61,39,694/- u/s 69A of the Act and Rs. 4,03,13,997/- u/s 69C of the Act (vide page 13-18 of the assessment order) and JGPO/01 Rs. 12,59,45,604/- u/s 69A of the Act vide page 19-20 of the assessment order as well as JGO /1 Rs. 7,09,39,606/- u/s 69A of the Act vide page 47 -55 of the assessment order on the grounds that cash transactions coming out of the above seized papers were outside the books of accounts of the assessee. 010. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the above additions made by the Assessing Officer after taking into account the submissions and contentions of the assessee by observing and holding as under: “All these grounds agitate against the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.26,20,85,298/- and Rs.4,03,13,997/- on the basis of seized documents PLJR/1, JGPO/1,JGO/01and the additions to the tune of Rs.7,09,39, 606/- on the basis of seized documentJGO/01 ignoring the explanations filed by the appellant. As per the submissions of theappellant, the fact that the nature of document PLJR/01 was explained, duly supported byanother seized document Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 7 JGPO/01 and the income arising in the nature of transaction withreference to the seized documents was duly disclosed in the return. As per the submissions of the appellant it has been stated that the Ld. AO in the assessmentorder has relied on three seized documents namely PLJR/01, JGPO/01 as well as JGO/1 forthe purpose of making the addition holding that the cash transactions were outside thebooks. Reference has been made to page 3 of the assessment order wherein the Ld. AO hasstated that two types of papers (as mentioned above) which were maintained for such out ofbooks cash transaction. On perusal of the assessment order it is observed that Rs.13,61,39,694/- as undisclosedcash loan received during F.Y: 2020-21, has been added by the Ld. AO on the basis ofPLJR/01. The Ld. AO has also separately added back an amount of Rs. 12,59,45,604/- asundisclosed cash loan received during F.Y: 2020-21 as per the transactions recorded inJGPO/1. Apart from the same, another addition of Rs.93,95,226/- has been made asundisclosed cash expenditure under section69C on the basis of PLJR/01. The Ld. AO hastabulated the transactions appearing in impounded documents PLJR/01 and JGPO/01 in hisassessment order. Reference has been made to the assessment order wherein the Ld. AO has stated that twotypes of papers (as mentioned above) which were maintained for such out of books cashtransaction: (a) Receipt of payments with date, amount (with double zero suppression), signature ofPremlal Jain with thanks, period of loan with interest calculation, etc. This receipt is supposedto be given to the lender while receiving the loan and the same is returned back while the(b) The second type of paper that is maintained is \"daily ledger\" of transactions whichrecords the cash loan received and the interest amounts paid on expiry of previous loans. Left side entries are receipts and right side entries are payments.The first type of document mentioned in point (a) has been found in seized documentPLJR/01 whereas the second type of paper mentioned in point (b) was found in seizeddocument JGPO/01. As a matter of fact, the seized document JGPO/01 bears the heading“Brokerage ka Khata”. The Ld. A/R of the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings submitted that all ofthe transaction shown and recorded from PLJR/01 in the assessment order are in fact thetransactions also recorded in JGPO/01 and therefore, it has been concluded by the A/R thatthe addition of the amount from PLJR/01 resulted in double addition and is liable to bedeleted. The appellant has also pointed out some mistakes in taking down the figures fromPLJR/01 both in respect of the credit side (taken as loans) and debit side (taken asexpenditure). The copies of PLJR/01 and JGPO/01 along with a reconciliation statement ofthe items in PLJR/01 with JGPO/01 for the relevant AY were submitted by the appellant tosubstantiate the same. As per the reconciliation statement it has been shown that three typesof entries were there. First, there arecertainentries in PLJR/01 as cash loan received whichhas been claimed to have been reflected in JGPO/01.Second, there are also some entries inPLJR/01 as cash expenditure were taken, which are also reflected in JGPO/01. Third, the A.Ohas considered certain entries in PLJR/01 as cash loan received wherein mistaken figureswere taken but correct figures with reference to seized documents were submitted and Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 8 all ofwhich are reflected in JGPO/01. As per the appellant, the total of these transactions whichwere there in PLJR/01 is Rs.13,84,61,788/- (and not Rs.13,61,39,694/- taken by the AO)which have also been entered into in JGPO/1. The appellant all the time i.e. during post search enquiry, during assessment proceedingsand during appeal proceedings has given the following explanation: “ Sir, based on the seized documents having reference Identification No PLJR/01 andJGPO/01 and going through the same, 1. Prem Lal Jain, would like to state as follows: Few of the finance brokers had approached me to accommodate them for their financingactivity to various customers. As a matter of fact, these brokers approached me to providecomfort letter by me to the lenders considering the goodwill of the \"Jain Finance Corporation\" The brokers had offered me brokerage ranging between 1% to 2%. The said letter wasissued in the name of the lender once the broker arranges the funds directly to his borrowerfrom the concerned lender. In turn, interest was earned by the lender and brokerage thereonwas earned by us (myself and broker). The responsibility of the broker was to arrange fundsfor his borrowers from the lenders and my responsibility was to give comfort letter to thelender as per the terms decided by the broker. As per the understanding with the broker, on his demand I paid the interest and his share ofbrokerage to the broker on behalf of the borrower. Thereafter, once the broker received theinterest from the borrower along with the brokerage, the broker used to reimburse the same to me. I used to receive it from the broker in few days or at the most within a span of about aweek the total brokerage collected was shared 50%-50% by us. Detailed explanation ofthese documents related to brokerage income is given in Annexure- 'PLJR/01 & JGPO/01 ofSchedule \"JG-I\". I further reiterate that the loans were given and received by the brokers directly. I had onlyissued my comfort letter in lieu of the brokerage/royalty income from the brokers.On the basis of above details, total income from brokerage amounts to Rs. 8,53,647/- [Rs.1.37,542/- of FY 2019-20 and Rs. 7,16,105/- of FY 2020-21 till the date of Search]”. However such explanation of the appellant has not been accepted by the Ld. AO. Duringappeal proceedings also, the appellant has submitted that loans were given and receiveddirectly by the brokers and he only issued his comfort letter in the lieu of brokerage from thebrokers. In support of that it was stated that all of the transaction shown and recorded fromPLJR/01 in the assessment order are in fact the transactions also recorded in JGPO/01 andtherefore, the addition of the amount from PLJR/01 resulted in double addition. The copies ofPLJR/01 and JGPO/01 along with a reconciliation statement of the items in PLJR/01 withJGPO/01 for the relevant AY were submitted by the appellant to substantiate the same. Onperusal of the same and the impounded documents JGPO/01 and PLJR/01, it was observedthat both the documents reflected the same transactions. For example in Page 19 ofPLJR/01, which is also reproduced in Page 7 of the assessment order, a document wasfound which is a note bearing Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 9 signature of Shri Prem Lal Jain in the letter head of JainFinance Corporation, conveying one L.N Keshan, that “ my person is going to you, give himRs.35,000/- ”. The Ld. AO has stated that there is double zero suppression and therefore, thetransaction was of Rs.35,00,000/-. Now in Page 15 of JGPO/01, there is a similar entry whichis as per the following: 35L L.N Keshan gave to Hari Pd. Dt11.08.20 through Ashok Saraogirate 8% + 1% 35L Hari Pd. 11.08.20 thru Ashok Saraogirate 8% + 1% + 1% From this entry in JGPO/01 it is seen as per the recordings that 35 Lakhs were given by L.NKeshan to Hari Prasad through Ashok Saraogi. Therefore, the Page 19 of PLJR/01 may beinferred as a letter from the appellant to L.N Keshan, requesting the lender to provideRs.35,000/- (double zero suppression). At this point, it is imperative to mention that theappellant is claiming that he was providing comfort letters to lenders on the request offinance brokers, considering the goodwill of Jain Finance Corporation. Again in Page 29 ofsuch impounded document JGPO/01, details of interest paid of Rs.1,23,410/- (till 10.01.2021)and brokerage of Rs.13,712/- is mentioned. This brokerage of Rs.13,712/- is claimed to have been earned by the appellant, which has been offered to tax as brokerage income by the appellant. Therefore, the contentions of the appellant are supported by the documentary evidences available on record. … On perusal of the above two tables it can be seen all transactions of Table 1 are appearing in Table 2. In Table 2, which is on the basis of JGPO/01, the transaction is more elaboratedwith the lender and the borrower being mentioned. The name of the broker is also present inJGPO/01, which also matches in both the documents, which is discussed in the later part ofthis order. The entries which bear a (-) sign are repayments of loans. All these entries havebeen checked from the impounded documents PLJR/01 and JGPO/01 and the appellant’s reconciliation was verified. To explain further, the instance cited by the Ld. AO himself in Page No. 4 and 6 is taken: In this case the Ld. AO has referred to Page 113 of the impounded document PLJR/01 andobserved the following: 1. Loan is received from Sanjay Saraogi. 2. Loan is provided to Jain Finance Corporation. 3. Date of transaction 25/07/2020. 4. Amount paid Rs.50,000 (With double zero suppression)i.e. Rs.50,00,000/- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 10 5. The receipt is countersigned with thanks by Prem Lal Jain, proprietor of Jain FinanceCorporation. 6. Paid for duration of 149 days. From 25/07/2020 to 21/12/2020. 7. Loan is arranged through Sanwariaji (broker) 8. Interest and brokerage is 8%+1.8%-9.8% in total. 9. Total amount of interest and brokerage payable is Rs. 2,00,027/-. Now when JGPO/01 was perused the same entries were found in Page 12 of the saiddocument, in the following manner: 50L Sanjay Saraogi gave to Ram Kr.Jain through Sanwaria Ji on25.07.2020 rate 8% + 1.8% 50L Ram Kr Jain 25.7.20 thru Sanwaria Jirate 8% + 1.8% + 1.8% Again in Page 23 of JGPO/01 the amount of Rs.200027/- is recorded to have been paid on21.12.2020 to Sanjay Saraogi through Sanwaria Ji broker. In this case also in Page 6, letterissued by Prem Lal Jain to the lender Sanjay Saraogi is reproduced in the assessment order,which again supports the appellant’s contention that he issued comfort letters to lenders onrequest of brokers. In this case, as per notings on left hand side, Sanjay Saraogi is stated to have lent Rs. 50L toone Ram Kr Jain at the rate of 8 percent, through one broker, Sanwaria Ji whose brokerageis 1.8 %. As per notings on right hand side, Ram Kr. Jain has taken loan at the rate of 8percent through Sanwaria Ji with brokerage of 1.8 percent and another brokerage of 1.8 %which the appellant is concerned about. The appellant, it is observed, is taking brokerageonly from the borrowers. It is also in sync with this explanation that he is providing thecomfort/guarantee to the lender on behalf of the borrower against which he is charging interest. The contention of the appellant in this regard which has been reproduced before andit is evident from the above noting in JGPO/01, that the appellant earned brokerage @1.8 %for such service provided. It is also clear that the appellant did not provide cash loanamounting to Rs.50 lakhs from his funds, but the same was given by the lender directly to theborrower through a broker. It is clear that all those transactions tabulated in the assessment order in Pages 14-18 (onthe basis of seized document PLJR/01) is incomplete and left blank by the Ld. AO. Theseblanks in Page 14-18 of the assessment order gets completed from the information availablein the other impounded document JGPO/1, titled “Brokerage ka Khata”, wherein the name oflenders, borrowers and respective brokers along with the interest payable by borrowers,brokerage payable to the borrowers and the appellant at the same rate are duly recorded. Itis also observed that the rate of brokerage receivable by the appellant is separately stated inthe description of each of the entry in JGPO/01. In respect of the above transaction ofRs.50,00,000/- (Sanjay Saraogi being the lender), as per Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 11 JGPO/01, the brokerage earned bythe appellant is Rs.36,940/- which is part of the brokerage income offered to tax by theappellant. Further in the same document JGPO/01, details oftotal brokerage earned by the appellantforFY: 2020-21 has also been recorded, which is to the tune of Rs.7,16,105/-. The saidbrokerage to the tune of Rs.7,16,105/- was declared in the regular books of the appellant andwas taken in the return filed by the appellant. So, the said income from brokerage was alsodisclosed by the appellant. It is further observed that the Ld. AO also accepted the saidbrokerage from the said transactions. So, it is evident that in this case, the Ld. AO has relied on one part of the said documentJGPO/01 and has taken only the entries appearing as the quantum of loans for the purposeof making addition, which as a matter of fact were also present in PLJR/01. The appellanthas substantiated that the brokerage on each of the transactions recorded in JGPO/01(which as discussed above, are the same transactions mentioned in PLJR/01) wasaccounted for in the return of income filed by the appellant for AY: 2021-22. Therefore, considering the contents of JGPO/01 and its reconciliation with PLJR/01, there isnothing before me which would contradict the appellant’s contention that he was earning onlybrokerage by providing comfort letters and that the loans were not provided by him. The Ld.AO, I find has not made any mention of any enquiry being conducted in respect of the brokers, specifically in view of the appellant’s claim that on request of brokers, he providedsuch comfort letters. Therefore, on the basis of these facts emanating from the contents ofimpounded documents, JGPO/01 and PLJR/01, as they have to be consideredsimultaneously, the appellant’s contention cannot be negated, especially in absence offurther material on record or further enquiry and therefore, neither the loans transacted andnor the interest expenditure on such loans can be attributed to the appellant. However, during verification, one transaction was found to have been recorded in PLJR/01 inSI No./Pg. No, 28/84 amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-, which has been given to Jain ResearchFoundation, which is not part of impounded document JGPO/01. The appellant has beenunable to provide any explanation in respect of the said transaction. It has been accepted bythe A/R of the appellant that the said amount was given to Jain Research Foundation out ofthe cash balance lying with the appellant and its group concerns which was titled as“Bhitarkajama”. The purpose of the said transaction has, however, not been provided by theLd. A/R and neither was it substantiated as to whether the said transaction was reflected inthe appellant’s books of account. So, this is one instance where an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-has given out in cash by the appellant which remains unexplained. At this juncture, I draw support from the judgment of Hon. ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH ‘H’in[2006] 155 TAXMAN 270 (MUM.) (MAG.) in the case ofBIREN V. SAVLAV.ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 11, where it was held: “Search and seizure operation under section 132 led to seizure of certain incriminatingdocuments including A-2/A-4 diaries and A-3 and A-5 diaries - While revenue acceptedtransactions recorded in A-2/A-4 as true, it rejected same transactions recorded in A-3/A-5 because same reflected cash transactions and Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 12 were outside books of account -Revenue, thus, made additions under section 69 on ground that outgoings recorded inA-3/A-5 diaries were assessee’s money which was unexplained - Assessee's case wasthat assessee was only a finance broker and money reflected in diaries A-3 and A-5belonged to others i.e. borrowers/lenders and that he was only earning financebrokerage on such lending and borrowing; in no case funds were brought to books ofassessee - Whether since presumption under section 132(4A) was raised in respect ofA-2/A- 4, same should be equally and in identical proportion raised in respect to A-3/A-4 – Held, yes - Whether since onus cast on revenue under section 69 to establish thatoutgoings belonged to assessee had not been discharged, deeming provision ofsection 69 could not be invoked in instant case - Held, yes”. This case I find is very similar in facts to the instant appeal in hand and therefore, the gist ofthe facts in the said case alongwithgist of the Hon. Tribunal’s judgement is reproducedbelow: “ The assessee was a finance broker. As a result of search and seizure operation undersection 132, certain incriminating documents, marked as A-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were seized. A-2and A-4 were two diaries containing the names of borrowers, lenders, rate of interest, date ofborrowing, amount and the date of return of money and the amounts of commission. All the transactions recorded therein were through cheques and the assessee earned brokeragethereon. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted thosetransactions as true, which were duly recorded in the regular books of account. A-3 and A-5diaries, reflected cash transactions, but the details of the transactions were similar, ratheridentical to those recorded in A-2 and A-4. However, transactions recorded in A-3 and A-5did not find place in books of account. The Assessing Officer worked out undisclosed incomeafter taking the peak amount from the two note books for the financial years 1992-93 to1994-95, and made the addition under section 69 holding that the outgoings recorded in A- 3/A-5 were the money of the assessee which was unexplained. On appeal, theCommissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition, even though it was explained that theassessee was only a finance broker and the money reflected in diaries A- 3 and A-5 belongedto others i.e., borrowers/lenders and that he was only earning finance brokerage on suchlending and borrowing. In second appeal assessee contended that he was a finance broker and was arranging fundson behalf of clients and these funds were directly lent to the borrower by the lender. Theassessee further contended that in no case, the funds were brought to the books of theassessee and he was entitled only for brokerage, and he had to maintain the diaries forrecording the transactions and for keeping track of his brokerage. The assessee was admittedly a finance broker arranging finance for borrowers and moneywas obtained from lenders. The assessee was charging brokerage only from the borrowersand not from the lenders. If the assessee had not arranged the finance from the lenders thenthere was no need for him to write the names of such lenders. It was not possible to believethat assessee intended to hoodwink somebody by mentioning the names of lenders. In respect of A-2 and A-4, the department accepted that the money belonged to the lendersand it was taken by borrowers and the assessee had only Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 13 received brokerage at the samerate as mentioned in them. However, similarly written and similarly placed other two diariesA-3 and A-5 were not accepted as true, merely because they contained cash transactions. Ifpresumption under section 132(4A) was raised in respect of A-2 and A-4, then same shouldbe equally and in identical proportion raised in respect of A-3 and A-5. The principle is that adocument found in search should be treated as genuine with respect to all the entriesrecorded therein. The revenue was not justified in taking a view that only a part of thecontents, i.e., the names of the borrowers was correct and not the names of lenders. Entiredocuments should be read as a whole and contents of entire documents should be treated ascorrect or rejected as a whole. The four diaries, in the shape in which they were maintainedwere neither the cash book nor journal nor a ledger. It was a sort of a memorandum in theform of a ledger where record of a borrower had been maintained so as to remember as tofrom whom he had borrowed the funds and at what rate of interest and for what period, orwhether there had been an extension of borrowing period. Thus, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 werenot ledgers in strict sense. For invoking section 69, the revenue has to establish that investment belonged to theassessee. In the instant case, onus cast on the revenue to establish that outgoings belongedto the assessee had not been discharged. Therefore, the deeming provision of section 69could not be invoked in the instant case. For making addition under section 69, there ought tobe some material to prove that outgoings taken by the borrowers belonged to the assessee. Where certain document is found in the search from the premises of the assessee, then apresumption is drawn under section 132(4A) that transactions recorded therein belonged tothe assessee. But such presumption is not absolute, but is rebuttable. Thus, when theAssessing Officer raised the presumption under section 132(4A) about A-3 and A-5 thatoutgoings so recorded in them were investments for the assessee, then the assesseesimultaneously discharged the burden that lay on him by submitting that A-2 and A-4 werealso a similar record of the events as A-3 and A-5 and once outgoings recorded in A-2 and A-4 were treated as investment of the lenders, the similarly placed diaries A-3, A-5 alsorecorded the outgoings whose money/investment belonged to the third parties, i.e., thelenders. The Assessing Officer did not point out any cogent reason as to why the onus thatlay on the assessee by virtue of presumption under section 132(4A) was not discharged. Theonus lying on the assessee regarding explaining the investments in outgoing or about theownership of the investment was discharged the moment the Assessing Officer accepted thatthe outgoings recorded in similarly placed document A-2 and A-4 belonged to the thirdparties. After that, the burden again shifted to the revenue to prove, by some additionalmaterial that even though outgoings recorded in A-2 and A-4 belonged to third parties butoutgoings recorded in A-3 and A-5 belonged to the assessee. No such material had beenbrought on record. There could not be two standards of presumption, one for sets A-2 and A-4 and other for A-3 and A-5. The difference the revenue had tried to make between two sets were that while in the first,i.e., A-2 and A-4 the transactions were done through banking channels whereas in A-3 andA-5 transactions were done in cash. This could not be a valid reason, to treat the outgoingsin A-3 and A-5 as belonging to the assessee. There is no presumption that all the chequetransactions are genuine and hence deemed to have been explained or that all the cashtransactions are non-genuine and hence unexplained. Therefore, it could not be said thatburden Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 14 was not discharged by the assessee merely because transactions recorded in A- 3/A-5 were in cash whereas burden was discharged by the assessee in respect of A-2 and A-4by explaining as to whom the outgoings belonged. Thus, similarly placed documents had to be treated similarly and onus also shifted similarly.As there was no further material with the revenue so as to fasten the ownership of theoutgoings on the assessee, the outgoings could not be said to belong to the assessee and,therefore, he was not bound to furnish explanation as to the source of such outgoings treatedas investment and then deemed income by the Assessing Officer on the ground that theywere not explained. Further, the assessee was not bound by section 69 to explain the sourceof investment as the same belonged to third parties.Besides, once the Assessing Officer believed the outgoings, he should have also believed the incomings. The documents should have been read as a whole and not in part. Thepresumption contained in section 132(4A) should be raised for entire documents and not fora part of it. Therefore, once outgoings were recorded as coming from lenders then that factshould also be accepted as true unless proved otherwise. It is not always desirable to reject the explanation furnished by the assessee. Totality ofcircumstances and preponderance of probability has to be taken into account before rejectingthe explanation furnished by the assessee. If, as in the instant case, the sources of income ofthe assessee were not such that it would yield large-scale profits or there was no evidence oflarge scale hidden or secret wealth, then the plausibility of explanation of the assessee thatoutgoings were not his money but were the money of the lenders, was required to beaccepted. Where cash transactions take place outside the kitty of the assessee or outside the books ofthe assessee, like in the instant case, the case cannot be considered under section 68 also.In any case, the Assessing Officer seemed to be satisfied that there was no case undersection 68, that was why he invoked only section 69. There was no allegation or fact shownby the department that alleged cash given to the borrowers had passed through the books ofthe assessee. In fact they were not reflected in the balance sheet, not even in the case of A-2and A-4, whose transactions had been accepted as correct and recorded in regular books ofaccount. Therefore, basic premises for invoking section 68 was not built up. Thus, there was no case of making addition in the case of the assessee under section 69and even under section 68, in respect of the borrowings in the case of the finance broker. Hecould at best be assessed only on the finance brokerage. The additions so sustained by theCommissioner (Appeals) under section 69 were deleted. The assessee’s appeals were, accordingly, allowed.” In this case also when the Assessing Officer raised the presumption under section 132(4A)about PLJR/01 that cash loans recorded in them were investments for the assessee, then theassessee simultaneously discharged the burden that lay on him by submitting that JGPO-01representing “Brokerage kakhata” was also a record of the cash loans facilitated by theappellant between the lenders and the borrowers through some brokers and once outgoingsrecorded in PLJR/01 were treated as cash loans, the similarly placed document JGPO/01also recorded the outgoings whose money/investment belonged to the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 15 third parties, i.e., thelenders.The onus to establish nexus between conclusion and primary fact is on the party who claimssuch nexus. In the present case, the nexus between primary facts, i.e., PLJR/01 andJGPO/01 and investment/income of the appellant has been established by the appellant. Inthis regard reference is made to the judgement of Hon. Apex Court in CIT v. Smt. P.K.Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. The credit appearing in the account of 18 years old girl andexplained as coming from her uncle was accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court asplausible cause and it was held that in the absence of any evidence, every explanationcannot be rejected. The discretion has to be used depending upon the circumstances. It wassubmitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the documents should be read as awhole. Once it is accepted on the basis of seized documents PLJR/01, money has beenadvanced to borrowers then it should also be accepted on the basis of JGPO/01 that suchmoney is coming from lenders and the appellant is merely earning brokerage and is nothimself advancing the cash loans. Advances alone should not be accepted as true butmoney coming from lenders and going to borrowers should also be accepted as true. Everypart of the documents has to be taken as true. Owing to the above discussion, the additions made by the Ld. AO under section69A to thetune of Rs.13,61,39,694/- (on the basis of PLJR/01) and to the tune of Rs.12,59,45,604/-under section69A (on the basis of JGPO/01) cannot be sustained and stands deleted. Theaddition to the tune of Rs.93,95,226/- (which is sum of interest paid and various loanrepayments between borrower and lender) also, therefore, cannot be sustained as it isestablished that the appellant was just facilitating such cash loans (the appellant himself wasnot providing such loans) and was earning only brokerage on the same which has been dulydisclosed by him in his return of income. However as discussed above, out of the same, anentry of Rs.10,00,000/- has been found to have been paid by the appellant to Jain ResearchFoundation could not be explained by the appellant and the same is liable to be treated asunexplained expenditure under section69C. Therefore, the addition of Rs.93,95,226/- undersection69C (on the basis of PLJR/01) is sustained to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- and theremaining portion stands deleted. In respect of the other additions to the tune of Rs.3,09,18,771/- and Rs. 7,09,39,606/- on thebasis of impounded document JGO/01, it is observed from the notings of the Ld. AO that thesame pertains to daily accounting of cash income and cash expenditure maintained by thecashier of the Jain Group companies, Shri Jai Prakash Gupta. The Ld. AO has alleged thatsuch cash income is generated through modes like, booking bogus expenses on TMT barsand cements and bringing back the money in cash against some brokerage, cash incomeagainst booking of the flats constructed by the group. It is further observed from the notingsof the Ld. AO as well as the details tabulated in the assessment order that cash expenditureswere incurred for paying commissions and petty expenses on project sites, paying salaryexpenses besides other miscellaneous expenses. The appellant’s contention is that the said documents were found the personal bag of Shri JaiPrakash Gupta in the search under the name of M/s. Tushar Art World LLP & Few otherlimited Cos & LLP and ors and not in the name of the assessee. It has been agitated by theLd. A/R that nowhere in such documents, the name of the appellant or his signature appears. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 16 On perusal of the assessment order and other relevant documents, it was seen that there isno mention of Prem Lal Jain in the details of the information tabulated by the Ld. AO. It hasalso been submitted by the A/R of the appellant that nowhere in his statement recordedunder section132(4), it has been accepted by Prem Lal Jain, that these transactionspertained to him. The person from whom such documents were seized, Jai Prakash Gupta,has also not mentioned that such cash receipts were in respect of Prem Lal Jain. On perusal of the sample ledgers/vouchers forming part of the assessment order anddocuments available on record as well as documents requisitioned from the Ld. AO, it is seenthat names of various projects of Jain Group appear in such vouchers, such as Dreamone-JGPPL, Dream Palazzo, Dream valley, JGPPL, Dream Ecocity, JGPPL, Darbar Hotel etc. The inventory of TMT Bars, flats, cement against which such vouchers have been issued isnot reflected in the appellant’s books of accounts and neither it has been established that theappellant hastrading/manufacturing business of TMT bars or construction in his personalname. The expenses in such vouchers are also mostly towards site expenses, commissionexpenses, salary payments of staff, miscellaneous expenses. It is pertinent to mention thatnone of these projects have been accounted for in the books of the appellant. As a matter offact, the appellant for the FY: 2020-21 has not reported any business turnover frommanufacturing or trading activities and has reported income under the head Salary, LTCG onshares, dividend on shares, brokerage and commission income, bank interest received, MiscIncome etc. There is no inventory of TMT Bars, flats, cement etc. in the appellant’s balancesheet. Since it has not been established that the appellant has business of TMT Bars orconstruction in his name, there is no scope with the appellant to book bogus expenses onTMT bars and cements in his books of account. There is also nothing in such documents inthe form of vouchers in JGO/01 which would establish that such cash receipts can beattributed to Prem Lal Jain. So, the contention of the Ld. AO that the appellant is generatingcash income by claiming bogus expenses, cash sales etc. is not tenable as there is noinventory of TMT Bars, flats, cement in the appellant’s books of accounts. The same may bepart of the books of accounts of the relevant projects Dreamone-JGPPL, Dream Palazzo,Dream valley, JGPPL, Dream Ecocity, JGPPL, Darbar Hotel and the Ld. AO may examinethe taxability of such information of bogus receipts/expenses (as per the relevant provisionsof the Act), arising out of seized documents JGO/01 in the hands of such entities in whosebooks inventories of such projects have been accounted for. Owing to the above discussion,the additions to the tune of Rs.3,09,18,771/- and Rs. 7,09,39,606/- on the basis ofimpounded document JGO/01 cannot be sustained in the hands of the appellant and thesame stands deleted.” 011. The learned DR vehemently argued that the additions made by the AO on the basis of seized documents were wrongly deleted by the learned CIT(A) by relying the explanations which are nothing but after thought. The learned DR submitted that these documents were recovered from the possession of the assessee Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 17 during search and the presumption is that all the transactions were belonging to the assessee. 012. Per Contra the learned counsel argued that with regard to the addition from PLJR/01 and JGPO/01 the facts/transactions are same. It was crystal clear that the transactions recorded in PLJR/01 were also fully recorded in JGPO/1. The Ld. CTT(A) analyzed the transactions in both papers vide page 21 of his order. The Ld. CIT (A) recorded the finding at page 22 of his order that the impounded documents JGPO/1 and PLJR/1, reflected the same transactions. While recording the said finding, the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded the entire facts with each and every entry examined by him and such analysis is done in from page 22 to 30. The said finding of the Ld CIT(A) which is purely on facts is not disputed by the Revenue. The copies of the seized documents PLJR/01 are available page nos 129 to 187 and JGPO/1 are at page nos 188 to 204 of the paper book. This shows that the Ld. AO has considered the notings in both seized papers (PLJR/01, JGPO/01) separately and made the additions separately of the same amount resulting into duplicacy of addition. Thus, the addition of the amounts stated in PLJR /I was duplicate or double addition and was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) after thoroughly examining the documents. 013. Coming to the addition on the basis of the papers seized under identification mark JGPO/01, the ld AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) even examined the brokerage part found recorded in two papers from page 31-43 and found the same recorded in both the papers and further that the brokerage on the said transactions was found disclosed in the return as noted at page 31 of his Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 18 order. As far as other additions are concerned, it is to be noted that the assessee acted only as accommodation provider as explained to the AO. The Ld AO observed that no such explanation was given to the search party by overlooking the fact that similar explanation was given in the course of search proceedings before the Investigation wing on 28.4.2021 which was also brought to the notice of the Ld. AO vide letter dated 8/1/2022 and the said explanation dated 28.4.2021 is taken note of and reproduced by the Ld. AO at page 23 and 24 of the assessment order 014. The ld AR argued that the Ld. AO has relied on document JGPO/1 to make the addition. The ld AR submitted that the Ld. AO has relied on one side entries in the said document seized in the course of search whereas the entries in the said document also contained all credits in the name of parties were simultaneously found debited to the borrowers with the same figures, rate of interest, the brokerage to be retained by the middlemen, the main broker and in the said debit side shown the additional brokerage to be charged by the assessee was also mentioned. This additional brokerage was charged in lieu of comfort letters of loans issued by the assessee to the lenders. The entire amount involved in such comfort letters issued at the instance of the middleman which was a sort of comfort letter signed by the assessee were duly entered into the book JGPO/01 (heading of this books is Brokerage -ka-khata paper book page 87 mentioning the amount sent by the loan givers and corresponding amounts taken by the borrowers from the loan Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 19 givers with the rate of interest as well as brokerage charged by the middlemen as well as by the assessee. The brokerage charged by the assessee on each of the transaction was separately accounted for cash transactions recorded in JGPO/1 which are available at page nos. 188-204 of the paper book and duly declared in the regular return filed by the assessee and accepted as such the Ld AO. The explanation given before DDIT (Inv) on 28.4.2021 is extracted in the assessment order by the AO which was not rejected by the Investigation wing nor any material was brought on record to prove that the particulars written on the debit side of the same paper were not true. The explanation filed by the assessee was fully evidenced from the entries and narrations of transactions in the seized ledger JGPO/01. The ld AR , therefore, submitted that it was proved from the seized papers itself that the assessee was only providing guarantee/comfort letters to the parties and changing brokerage in lieu. The heading of the seized book JGPO/I also showed that the same as \"Brokerage-ka-khata\". On these facts and considering the seized paper IGPO/I and entries contained therein as a whole, then in the case of assessee only brokerage income can be added. The ld AR stated that the issue is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No. 1512 of 2017 vide order dated 12.06.2020). Similarly, the issue also stands covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT, KOLKATA VS PRAMOD SHARMA in ITA/165/2010 vide judgement dated 5th February 2024 holding that only brokerage can be added and such brokerage income of Rs. 1,37,642/- have been accepted by the Ld. AO. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 20 015. Ld AR vehemently argued that the Ld. AO cannot partly accept a document and partly reject it by referring to the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Tara Devi Goenka reported in 122 ITR page 14. Further, seized paper cannot be partly accepted and partly rejected. It was evident from JGPO/1 that the amount received was only to give comfort to the parties and earning brokerage which was evident from the heading of the book as well from brokerage earned and found recorded into the said book. The amount received was credited in the ledger and the simultaneously amount paid from such receipt to the borrowers was debited in the same ledger. Thus, the same without any doubt, proved that the assessee was only accommodating the parties by giving comfort letters. The AO while making addition has picked up the figures of one side but completely left out the other side. The narrations in the entries clearly stated that the assessee was getting brokerage @1% to 1.5% on such transactions amount. It has been held in a number of cases that the AO has to read the seized paper as a whole and cannot partly accepted it and partly reject it. Therefore, the only income earned by the assessee was his brokerage income as appeared in the seized paper corroborated with the rate of brokerage which was clearly stated alongside each and every accommodation entry. The ld AR also referred to section 132A(4) and 292C of the Act submitting that the AO’s part reliance on the document JGPO/I ,which was a seized document , is unsustainable in law as the AO cannot partly rely on some entries in the document/explanation and partly reject the same. In defense of his arguments the ld AR also relied on the following decisions: Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 21 a. Glass Lines Equipment’s Co. Ltd. Vis CIT 253 ITR 454 Guj b. Tara Devi Goenka 122 ITR 14 c. Vivek Kumar Kathotia vs ITO (142 ITD 394), d. Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstu. CIT [1999] 71 ITD 245 (Pune)) e. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 102 ITD 375 (Pune), f. Asstt CITv. Omprakash & Co. [2003] 132 Taxman 99 (Mag)/[2004] 2 SOT | (Mum.); g. CIT v. D.D. Gears Ltd [2012] 25 taxmann.com 562/211 Taxman 8 (Delhi)(Mag.). h. ITA NOS. 6309/MUM/2019 (Λ.Υ. 2008-09) DCIT-Central Circle- 8(4) v. Mis. Ashok R Ruia Decided on 28.02.2022. 016. The learned AR submitted that the the Ld. AO has relied on the statement of the assessee which commenced on 13.1.2021 and continued upto the evening of 14.1.2021.The said statement consisted of about 58 pages. Toward the end of the marathon examination, some questions were raised which the assessee duly replied by saying that he will explain the same later on because the assessee was grilled for considerable time while recording a long statement by which time the assessee was fully exhausted and it was humanly impossible to respond to further queries that too during covid period which was in full swing. However, the assessee during the course of search itself filed the explanation before the Investigation wing wherein he clearly Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 22 stated the nature of the transactions in the said seized paper were on account of accommodation by way of comfort letters. The ld AR argued that the AO cannot ignore the said statement at his choice which was filed during the course of search before Investigation wing against which no evidences or controverting materials were brought on record either by Investigation wing or by the AO. The transactions recorded and the nature of transactions were fully corroborated with the seized papers itself as well as from the statement of the assessee. Thus , there was nothing on record to justify the action of the AO. 017. The ld AR submitted that Section 292C provides presumption as to assets, books of account, etc., to the effect that (1) such assets, books of account, etc., belong to the person from whose possession and control they were seized; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true and (iii) signature; and every other part of such books of account and other documents are in the handwriting of such person.The expression \"may be presumed\" raises a rebuttable presumption. Therefore, the onus is on one who contends otherwise, who challenges the said presumption, which considers/presumes the apparent as real. The scope of this presumption was also explained by the various Courts/Tribunal in following cases namely ; CIT v laika Greenfield (P) Ltd. [2009] 121 TTJ 208 (Delhi), CIT v. Devendra Kumar Singhal [2014] 45 taxmann.com 118/223 Taxman 44 (All) (Mag), Vivek Kumar Kathatia (supra) as quoted in Fort Projects (P) Lad v. Dy C17 [2013] 29 inomann.com 84 (Kol -Trib), Nirmal Fashions (P) Lid. v. Dy CIT [2008] 25 SOT 387 (Kol.), Surendra M. Khandharv Asus CIT [2010] 321 ITR 254 (Bom) Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 23 018. Thus, the natural presumption is that the contents of the entire documents were true and correct. It was for the department to prove that part of the contents was not true and only part of the same was true. The AO has not proved and even not disputed that one part of the contents of seized paper was not correct. Thus, the entire contents of the seized paper have to be accepted as true and correct. The Ld CIT(A) examined the papers seized in JGPO/I and found the aforesaid facts correct which finding has not been disputed by the Revenue. Thus, the only conclusion which could be drawn from finding of facts is that the assessee received only brokerage on these transactions and the same was duly disclosed. Thus, no addition was called for.Hence the addition made on part reading of the transactions from IGPO/I leaving corresponding part is not justified and was rightly deleted by first appellate authority. 019. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material as placed before us, we find that during the course of search, three documents were seized namely PLJR/01, JGPO/01 and JGO/01. We observe that there were some cash transactions of loans taken and repaid given in these documents. We further note that the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of the documents namely PLJR/01 ₹ 13,61,39,694/- and ₹ 4,03,13,997/-. Similarly, the AO on the basis of JGPO/01 made the addition of ₹ 12,59,45,604/-. Besides the AO made an addition on the basis of JGO/01 ₹ 7,09,39,606/-. According to the AO these transactions were not recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. We observe from the perusal of these Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 24 documents that the same transactions were recorded in the seized documents marked as PLJR/01 as well as JGPO/01. In other words, the transactions found mentioned in PLJR/01 were also fully recorded in JGPO/01. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has analysed these transactions recorded in both the seized documents on page no. 21 of the appellate order by examining each and every transaction and analysed the same from page no. 22 to 30 in the appellate order. The copies of seized documents PLJR/01 and JGPO/01 are available at page no. 121 to 187 and from page no. 188 to 204 of the paper book respectively. We have also examined these documents and find that they contain the same transactions. Therefore, the AO has made double addition in respect of the same transactions which was rightly deleted by CIT(A). 020. Now so far as the addition made on the basis of seized documents marked as JGPO/01, the CIT(A) even examined that brokerage part was found recorded in these two papers which was fully recorded and disclosed by the assessee in the books of accounts maintained and finally offered to tax in the return of income. We note that the assessee was only facilitator and was providing comfort letters in lieu of brokerage/ royalty from the brokers who arranged finances to the borrowers from the lenders. Accordingly, modus operandi as recorded by the CIT(A) also and as is apparent from the documents/records before us, we note that the assessee himself was not engaged in borrowing or lending of money but was providing comfort because of goodwill and creditworthiness of M/s Jain Finance Corporation an entity owned by him. The assessee stated that the brokers approach him for accommodation for their financing activities to Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 25 various customers. The assessee stated that the brokers approach him to provide comfort letter to the lenders considering the goodwill of Jain Finance Corporation and brokers offered the assessee the brokerage ranging from 1% to 2%. Thus we note that brokers arrange the money/funds directly to the borrowers from the lenders under the comfort provided by the assessee. Therefore, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has fully and correctly appreciated the facts in the seized documents marked as PLJR/01 and JGPO/01 while passing appellate order in a very reasoned and speaking manner. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) which requires no interference at our end. Consequently , the additions of ₹ 13,61,39,694/- based on PLJR/01 and ₹ 12,59,45,064/- based on JGPO/01 as made by the AO under Section 69A of the Act were rightly deleted by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold the order of CIT(A) by dismissing the grounds raised by the revenue. 021. So far as the addition based on the document marked as JGO/01 is concerned, we note that the same is pertaining to the daily accounting of cash income and cash expenditure mentioned by the cashier of Jain Group Companies Mr. Jay Prakash Gupta. The assessee has disputed the said addition. The assessee has been contending throughout that the said document was found from the bag of Jay Prakash Gupta which were not part of the panchnama. We also note that the said person is not employee of the assessee and therefore none of the documents recovered from him could be treated as relating to the business of the assessee. It was also submitted before the authorities below that in the said documents, the name of the assessee or signature were not mentioned at all. We also note that there Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 26 was no mention of Prem Lal Jain in the details and information tabulated by the AO. We further note that during the course of recording of statement of Mr. Prem Lal Jain it was never ever accepted that these transactions pertained to him. Moreover, the person from whom the said documents were seized has also not mentioned or stated that such cash receipts were in respect of Prem Lal Jain. It was also noted that since the assessee was not carrying on any projects or trading or manufacturing activities, therefore, the observations of the AO that these are undisclosed expenses of the assessee has no merit as it has not been established that the assessee has business of TMT Bars or construction in his name. Thus, there is no scope for the assessee to book bogus expenses such as TMT Bars , cement in the books of accounts. It is also submitted that there was nothing in such documents in JGO/01 which has established that the cash receipts could be income of the assessee and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 3,09,18,771/- and ₹ 7,09,39,606/- as made by the AO on the basis of JGO/01. 022. We have also perused the provisions of sections 132A(4) and 292C of the Act as referred and relied upon by the ld. AR. For the sake of ready reference these sections are extracted below: “Section 132(4A) of the Act where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other value article or thing are or in found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed: (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 27 (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true, and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may be reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stomped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested” “Section 292C(1) of the Act where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion jewellery or other valuable article or thing are found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 (or survey under section 133, in any proceeding under this Act, it is presumed: (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person, (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true, and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably he assumed to have been signed by or to be in the handwriting of any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been to executed or attested”. 023. We have perused the provisions of Section 292C(2) which provides that where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer in Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 28 accordance with the provisions of section 132A, then, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply as if such books of account other documents or assets which had been taken into custody from the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of search under section 132. 024. From the facts it is clear that the AO has partly relied on the document JGPO/I which was a seized document. The AO cannot partly rely on some entries in the document/explanation and partly reject the same. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Glass Lines Equipment’s Co. Ltd. Vis CIT 253 ITR 454 (Guj) wherein it has held that documents must be read as a whole. Similarly in the case of Tara Devi Goenka 122 ITR 14 it has been held that that a document and explanation cannot be partly accepted and partly rejected. We note that the Ld AO has taken the figures from JGPO /1 for making addition of investments but at the same time the narration given along with each entry that the transactions were for earning brokerage income were ignored. In fact, the brokerage income for the transactions as mentioned in the said document was also recorded with reference to the amount involved as mentioned in the said document and such brokerage was duly declared as income in the return of income and accepted by the AO. Therefore we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the AO cannot partly accept the said explanation and document and cannot partly reject the same. In the case of Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstu. CIT [1999] 71 ITD 245 (Pune)) is also cited wherein vide Para 8 it was held as under- Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 29 \"In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that this statement has to be considered and accepted as a whole if the assessing officer wants to use it in evidence. The assessing officer cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold simultaneously Revenue cannot be permitted to use that part of the statement which is beneficial to it and reject the other part of the statement which is detrimental to it. This view has also been taken by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Ghanshyambhai R Thakkar (supra). The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra v. Sushila (supra), also says that admission has to be considered in its entirety. However, the senior departmental Representative has also relied on para 213 of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court for the proposition that even the part-statement can be rejected. We find that para 213 is part of the dissenting judgment. According to the majority judgment, the entire admission was to be acted upon. We, therefore reject this submission of the learned senior departmental Representative\" 025. Thus, the issue is fully covered by a series of decisions as relied by the assessee and mentioned above. There is no dispute that JGPO/1 was brokerage book clearly written on it and was for recording brokerage transactions. The nature of brokerage was fully explained before the Ld. ADIT as stated hereinbefore vide assessee's submissions. Thereafter there was no further query by the ADIT (Investigation.) This explanation was also given before the AO and the AO also called for further explanation which also was furnished. We note that the AO has not brought on record any substantive evidence/material to prove to the contrary. We Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 30 note that the AO has accepted brokerage income from out of the same transactions while some were rejected. 026. The expression \"may be presumed\" raises a rebuttable presumption. Therefore, the onus is on one who contends otherwise or who challenges the said presumption, which considers/presumes the apparent as real. The scope of this presumption was also explained by the various Courts/Tribunal in following cases namely CIT v laika Greenfield (P) Ltd. [2009] 121 TTJ 208 (Delhi), CIT v. Devendra Kumar Singhal [2014] 45 taxmann.com 118/223 Taxman 44 (All) (Mag), Vivek Kumar Kathatia (supra) as quoted in Fort Projects (P) Lad v. Dy C17 [2013] 29 inomann.com 84 (Kol -Trib), Nirmal Fashions (P) Lid. v. Dy CIT [2008] 25 SOT 387 (Kol.), Surendra M. Khandharv Asus CIT [2010] 321 ITR 254 (Bom) 027. Thus, the natural presumption is that the contents of the entire documents were true and correct. It was for the department to prove that part of the contents was not true and only part of the same was true. The AO has not proved and even not disputed that one part of the contents of seized paper was not correct. Thus, the entire contents of the seized paper have to be accepted as true and correct. The Ld CIT(A) examined the papers seized in JGPO/I and found the aforesaid facts to be correct which finding has not been disputed by the Revenue. Thus, the only conclusion which could be drawn from finding of facts is that the assessee received only brokerage on these transactions and the same was duly disclosed and offered to tax. Thus, no further addition is called for. Hence the addition made on part reading of the Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.72 & 73/Kol/2025 Prem Lal Jain 31 transactions from IGPO/I leaving corresponding part is not correct and unjustified 028. In view of the above facts and in the light of decisions as discussed above, we uphold the order passed by the ld the Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the ground no. 2, 3 and 4 of appeal of the revenue. 029. IT(SS)A No.73/Kol/2025- Since the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical, therefore, our findings/directions given above in IT(SS)A No.72/Kol/2025will mutatis mutandis apply IT(SS)A No.73/Kol/2025 also. Hence, IT(SS)A No.73/Kol/2025 is also dismissed. 030. In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Kolkata, the 13th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rajesh Kumar] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:13. 01.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "