DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LIC BUILDING V. MADHU CHORDIA, C-SCHEME

ITA 1525/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the revenue challenging the decision of the CIT(A) which had deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18. The additions were based on discrepancies between the consideration stated in soft copies of property agreements found in a laptop during a search operation and the registered sale deeds. The CIT(A) found that these soft copies were unsigned, incomplete, and not executed, and thus could not be relied upon to substantiate the AO's additions. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the revenue's appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314147 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: K P Varghese v/s ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC), Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC), CIT Vs Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36, CIT v. Moorti Devi [2010:DHC:4677-DB], PCIT Vs Nexus Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 1963 of 2017]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD GUPTA
• Keywords: Question of law; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 69; 139

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@AssessmentYear :2015-16 & 2017-18 The DCIT Central Circle-3, Jaipur cuke Vs. Madhu Chordia C-61, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABEPC3321R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Sh. Vinod Gupta, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by :Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :17/03/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. By way of present appeals, the revenue challenges the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Jaipur-4 dated 17.10.2024 [here in after ld. CIT(A)] for assessment years 2015-16 & 2017-18. The said orders of the ld. CIT(A) arise against the orders dated 30.05.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 [ for short Act ] by ACIT, Central Circle-3, 2 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. Jaipur [ for short AO]. As the issue involved in both the appeals is common, we deem it fit to dispose off these appeals by this common order. 2. In ITA No. 1520/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised following grounds: - “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,30,00,000/-u/s69 made by the AOon account of undisclosed income disregarding the facts that the addition was based on the incriminating material found and seized in the laptop and there remains no use of physical copy of agreement after execution of registered deed which is general practice in property transactions. 2. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forgo any grounds) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal.” Whereas in ITA No. 1525/JPR/2024, it has raised following grounds: - “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,45,65,000/- u/s 69 made by the AO on account of undisclosed income disregarding the facts that the addition was based on the incriminating material found and seized in the laptop and there remains no use of physical copy of agreement after execution of registered deed which is general practice in property transactions. 2. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forgo any grounds) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal.” 3. As the issue involved in both the appeals is common, we deem it fit to dispose it off by this common order. We are taking ITA No.1520/JP/2024 as the lead case.Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) was carried out on 19.01.2021in the case of “Chordia Group” to which the assessee belongs. Consequent to search action, the case of the assessee was 3 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. centralized to ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur-2 vide his order dated 28.07.2021. 3.1 Assessee is an individual and had filed her return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 28.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 26,91,090/-. Consequent to notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 22.10.2021 and in compliance thereto, return was filed on 22.12.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 12,32,390/-. Statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee calling for the details and the assessee in response to those notice furnished the details / information / documents / which were examined with respect to claims made in the return of income. Subsequently, order u/s 153A of the Act was passed on 30.05.2022 wherein addition of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- was made alleging undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Act by the respondent. 3.2 Ld. AO on the basis of a soft copy of agreement found in the laptop of Nitin Chordia, son of the assessee, in respect of purchase of property, i.e. Plot No.C-60, Sangram Colony, Jaipur, comparing it with the registered conveyance deeds of these properties, made the addition u/s 69 for the difference found in the consideration paid by the assessee. 3.3 We find that the said property belonged to four co-owners divided into four distinct and identifiable portions. Two of these portions were purchased and 4 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. registered in FY 2014-15 while the other two were purchased and registered in FY 2016-17. The AO noted that there was a difference in the consideration stated in the soft copies of agreements retrieved from the laptop and the respective sale deeds. He was of the view that it is a general practice in real estate transactions that first agreement is executed and thereafter the sale deed is executed and the agreement depicts the true picture. The Ld.AO brushing aside the reply/explanation put forth by the assessee, made the addition presuming the same to be on-moneypaid in cash by the assessee. 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: “6.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under: - … Decision of Ld. CIT(A):- There are three kind of seized material in the present case, (i) typed soft files from laptop, (ii) registered sales deed and (iii) letter from seller Sh. Prakash Dayal. The ld. AO has treated the transaction value mentioned in the typed soft files as correct whereas the appellant has contended that such soft files cannot be relied upon and has relied upon the registered sales deeds and seized letter from seller Sh. Prakash Dayal. It is noticed from the soft files that these are unsigned and incomplete documents. The details of payment cheque are left blank. Further the appellant has also highlighted some factual errors in these soft files. Soft word files are of 06.10.2013, whereas property was purchased from four parties on 13.10.2014 (Prabhat Dayal HUF), 11.02.2015 (Prabhat Dayal), 02.09.2016 (Prakash Dayal) and 02.11.2016 (Anjali Lodha). Property has been purchases after a substantial gap of 1 to 3 years. 5 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. This prima facie shows that these soft files keeping in view the other seized material & assessment inquiries, are not of such nature that the addition to income could be made in the assessment solely on the basis of these files. Further from the perusal of the soft files it is seen as under:- (i) Soft file regarding sale by Doctor Prakash Dayal (ii) Soft file regarding sale by Sh. Prabhat Dayal 6 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. (iii) Soft file regarding sale by Prabhat Dayal HUF From the above it is noted that even though it has been mentioned that the part of the consideration was received by the sellers in cheque however the cheque number and date are left blank and at the same time there is no entry of the bank transaction on record which could show that any advance cheque was received by the appellant in the year 2013 in this regard. This 7 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. shows that these soft files were not executed. Also there is no mention of cash payment in these soft files. Further as per soft files the remaining payment and registry was to be done within 6 months whereas the actual sales have taken place after a gap of 1 year to 3 years. Further, the purchase is meeting the requirement of stamp valuation rates. From the perusal of the assessment order and submissions of the appellant, during the search, no document was found indicating any cash payment or unaccounted payment. Further, it is noted in the assessment order that “during the search proceedings at residence of assessee at 61, Sangram Colony, Jaipur a loose paper (C-1/E-2/75) was also found and seized. This paper is a letter dated 23.05.2015 sent by Shri Prakash Dayal and is addressed to M/s ArihantEnterprises. Vide the above letter Shri Prakash Dayal has demanded balance amount of Rs. 2.00 crores for sale of plot no. 60, Sangram Colony, Jaipur. He has further stated as per clause 2 & 3 of the agreement if the balance amount of Rs. 2.00 crore is not paid to him before 30.05.2015, he will forfeit Rs. 70 lac paid to him by the assessee at the time of agreement” dated 01.04.2015. The said letter is placed at PB page 26. Thus with respect to sale by Shri Prakash Dayal there are three different values and three different documents of different years. The soft file agreement found from laptop of Nitin Chordia is dated 06.10.2013. The Agreement with Arihant Enterprises is dated 01.04.2015. The registry has been done on 02.09.2016. It is also noted in the assessment order that “in this regard, commission u/s.131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the DDIT(Inv.)-1, Jodhpur to conduct enquiries in respect of Shri Prakash Dayal. A report dated 27.08.2021 by the DDIT(Inv.)-1, Jodhpur was received in the office office of DDIT(Inv.)-I, Jaipur on 07.09.2021. It has been informed that Shri Prakash Dayal has denied of making any agreement of Rs.3.25 crores for the sale of his portion of plot No.C-60, Sangram Colony. Further, Shri Prakash Dayal has accepted that vide agreement dated 01.04.2015 he has agreed to sale his portion of the plot in Rs.2.70 crores and he has received advance amount of Rs.70 lakhs. He has further accepted that the agreement was not finalised and advance amount of Rs.70 lakhs paid by M/s. Arihant Enterprises was forfieted by him and the same was offered for taxation.” The ld. AO has summarised the position in this regard that “On analysis of the agreements and letter of Shri Prakash Dayal written to M/s. Arihant Enterprises, it is inferred that agreement value for the portion of plot of Shri Prakash Dayal wasRs.3.25 crores and value as per letter was Rs.2.70 crores.” The value as per the letter mentioning 70 lakhs and 2 cr. has been accepted by the seller Shri Prakash Dayal and he has also confirmed that the transaction did not take place and he had offered the forfeited money fortaxation. There is no adverse finding on this in the assessment order. Ld. AR has argued that from the perspective of buyer Arihant Enterprises, it chose forfeiture of advance of Rs. 70 lakhs instead of paying remaining Rs. 2 cr. This shows that at that 8 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. stage for Arihant Enterprises the value of that part of the property was less than Rs. 2 cr. as the advance was already a sunk cost. Ld. AR has argued that this letter is also a part of seized material and is signed and accepted by seller and corroborated by books and this itself proves that the unsigned soft files / typed file from laptop cannot be relied upon. In the current case, the AO failed to prove the payment in cash by the appellant however the submission of the appellant find support from the statement of one of the seller which also proved the finding of the AO wrong by denying any cash involvement in the property transaction. Hence, in light of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of K P Varghese v/s ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC), burden of proof was on the AO. The appellant has rightly contended that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof by taking reference of the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC). In view of the above totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the ratio of the judgements referred by the appellant in her submissions, the addition made in the assessment order considering the property transaction value as mentioned in the soft files to be the final/actual transaction value and treating the difference as unaccounted cash payment, cannot be upheld and resultantly the same is hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly this ground of appeal is hereby allowed”. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the above findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) the revenue preferred the present appeal raising a solitary ground of appeal, on the addition deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR is heard who heavily relied upon the finding so recorded in the order of assessment. 6. On the other hand, the ld.AR filed a detailed written submission supporting the order of the ld.CIT(A) which is reproduced hereunder- 1. The department ground of appeal is referring to ‘general practice’ in property transaction means it is purely based upon presumption and surmises. Further, is it justified, to make addition under Income Tax Act on the basis of ‘general practices’ followed in the industry rather than on any evidence. 2. Unsigned, incomplete, soft word file, wrongly presumed as agreement: It was alleged by the Ld. AO that three unsigned soft word files were found. The question arises, can these unsigned soft word files(PBP: 1 – 13) can be termed as ‘agreements’? The obvious answer would be No. Since it is neither executed nor signed nor complete and 9 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. therefore not enforceable under any law. Therefore, Ld. AO had erred in considering these incomplete soft word files as ‘agreement’.The Ld. CIT(A) acknowledged these facts, submitted by the respondent, and considered them while deleting the addition under the current case.In this regard, we placed our reliance on following case laws:  Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the caseof CIT Vs Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 held as under: \"Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that, admittedly, the assessee had not signed the agreement in question and since he had not signed the agreement, no liability could be attributed qua that that agreement towards him since he was not aparty to the agreement till he had signed the agreement. The mere fact that this agreement was found in the possessionof the assessee did not lead anywhere. Thus, the addition of Rs. 17,00,892 made by the Assessing Officer by way ofhalf share of the assessee in the earnest money was based on surmises and guess work only and was liable to be deleted.\"  In the case of CIT v. Moorti Devi [2010:DHC:4677-DB],the issue pertained to the addition on the basis of seizure of two different set of documents i.e., agreement to sell and sale deed, which signified different purchase considerations; however, the assessee was never confronted with the original documents. This Court, while upholding the finding of the ITAT therein that merely on the basis of an alleged photocopy of a document, it cannot be assumed that the transaction was in fact entered into by the assessee, has held as under:- “7. On a perusal of the order passed by the authorities below, it is luminescent that the original documents were never confronted to the assessee. Nothing has been brought on record as to what happened to the original documents. There is no material even to indicate that the photocopies are the copies of the original documents. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the tribunal has correctly held that they do not have any evidentiary value. That apart, no steps were taken to establish the factum of the transaction but time and again reliance was placed on the photocopy of the instrument which pertained to the transaction.” The case under consideration is squarely covered by above referred case laws as in the case in hand also, only soft word files, without any signature, were found. Moreover, there is no reference of any cash payment even in such soft word files. 3. Addition was made relying upon dumb material and based on presumptions and conjectures: a) As stated in point (1) above, the alleged soft word files were without any signature or without even having any intent to make payment in cash. Only reference of payment is through cheque which is also without any cheque number. Moreover, the contents of 10 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. these soft word files are significantly different from the actual transactions which shows that it is rough or dumb soft copy. For instance: i. Date of purchase of plot no. 60 by P. Dayal is mentioned as 08.11.1960 in the soft copies whereas in the sale deed, it is 05.11.1960; ii. In the soft copies, the area of plot no. 60 is mentioned as 714.6 Square yard whereas in the sale deed, the area of such plot is 710 square yards. iii. Area of ground floor of Dr. Prakash Dayal is 1400 Square feet in the soft copies which is 800 square feet as per sale deeds. b) Further, there is a significant time difference between actual transaction even as per the alleged date mentioned in soft word files. c) Even for sake of argument, if we evaluate the approach of Ld. AO that there are soft copies of alleged agreement, although not even containing any cheque number(s) rather containing materially incorrect facts. However, same were converted to the agreement and subsequently upon registration of actual sale deeds, these alleged hypothetical agreements were destroyed and the entire alleged cash payment was also made at the time of registration of sale deed. The question arises in this entire hypothesis, no payment was made by cheque or cash but agreement was entered and after long gap of time, based upon such agreement, subsequent sale deed was entered. It shows the entire premise is hollow, without any basis, against the common sense that why a person will enter into an agreement without taking a single penny and why such person would keep the agreement on hold for such a long period of time. Therefore, the entire approach of Ld. AO was imaginary, presumptive and based upon his own hypothesis and conjecture. d) Therefore, in view of the above stated facts, circumstance and jurisprudence, since the whole addition was based upon presumptions of treating soft word files as ‘real agreements’ which are, in fact, nothing more than ‘dumb documents’, the action of the Ld. AO was illegal and accordingly, the addition was rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Statement of Dr. Prakash Dayal, recorded vide commission u/s 131(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, supports the case of the respondent: a) One portion was purchased by respondent from Dr. Prakash Dayal for consideration of Rs. 2,04,35,000/- on 02.09.2016 for which addition of Rs. 1,20,65,000/- has been made in A.Y. 2017-18. b) An agreement dated 01.04.2015 was entered between Dr. Prakash Dayal and Arihant Enterprises for consideration of Rs. 2,70,00,000/- for the property under consideration. Rs. 70,00,000/- was given as advance through banking channel by Arihant Enterprises 11 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. which is also appearing in books of accounts of said firm. According to agreement, balance payment had to be made on or before 30.05.2015. c) Arihant Enterprises failed to make the remaining payment. Further, an unsigned letter (PBP:14) was also found in the seized material which states that if remaining payment is not made, the advance payment will be forfeited. d) In the statement (PBP:15 - 20) it is confirmed by Dr. Prakash Dayal that said advance has been forfeited and shows as income in his ITR. e) In the statement, Dr. Prakash Dayal confirmed the subsequent sale to appellant at Rs. 2,04,35,000/-. He also denied having any knowledge about such soft word file and consideration stated therein of Rs. 3,25,00,000/-. f) A report with statement was furnished by DDIT (Inv-1), Jodhpur to office of DDIT (Inv- 1), Jaipur on 07.09.2021 and same was also confirmed at page 6 of the assessment order. Despite his categorical statement on oath Ld. AO overlooked the same and gone on the basis of his own presumption without bringing anything adverse against statement of Dr. Prakash Dayal. g) It is very much clear, from the above statement, that the soft word fileswere never been acted upon and there is no proof of any cash payment even though there is independent evidence, gathered by the department in form of statement of Dr. Prakash Dayal, which was not considered by the Ld. AO while drawing the inference.However, the Ld. CIT(A) considered this important point while deleting the addition. h) In this regard, we place on reliance on the following:  Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Nexus Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 1963 of 2017] held as under: “5. The ITAT has also accepted the explanation of respondent that initially the said flat, of which the letter was found, was negotiated and sold for a sum of Rs.59,34,000/- to one Mr. Milind Bhingare and the party had made a token payment of Rs.1 lakh. The booking was cancelled on the ground that the agreed price was much higher than prevailing market price and Rs.1 lakh was returned to Mr. Milind Bhingare. Thereafter, Mr. Devendra Singh Tomar approached respondent and negotiated to purchase the flat at Rs.49,18,000/- which amount the said Devendra Singh Tomar paid in three installments. The said Devendra Singh Tomar has also filed an affidavit giving details as well as proofs of payment. In our view, the conclusions of the Assessing Officer and supported by CIT (A) are all conjectures. 6. In our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the Gauri Gaekwad 4/4 910.ITXA-1963- 2017.doc issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law”. 12 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. In the present case also, agreement, dated 01.04.2015, was entered between Dr. Prakash Dayal and firm, Arihant Enterprises for consideration of Rs. 2,70,00,000/- for the property under consideration. Further, in terms of such agreement, Rs. 70,00,000/- was given as advance through banking channel by Arihant Enterprises to Dr. Prakash Dayal which is also appearing in books of accounts of said firm. 5. Section 69 of the Act cannot be invoked merely on the basis of suspicion or conjecture: a) As discussed hereinbefore, it is the presumption that soft word files found is representing an executed agreement. It is also a presumption that it is practiced in the real estate trade. However, your honour would appreciate that the contents of soft word files are materially different from executed sale deed (PBP: 21 - 83)and there is a timing difference between alleged soft word files and actual execution of sale deeds. b) In view of the above, we submit that no addition can be made on the basis of sheer imagination. It is a settled legal position that onus of proof is on the person who makes the allegation and not on the person who has to defend. c) As per legal maxim “affairmanti non negantiincumbit probation” means burden of proof lies upon him who affirms and not upon him who denies. Similarly, as per doctrine of common law “incumbit probation qui digit non qui negat” i.e. burden lies upon one who alleges and not upon one who denies the existence of the fact. d) In the instant case, there is no evidence of cash payment even one of the sellers whose statement was recorded denied having knowledge of any such soft copy or contents therein. There is not a single iota of evidence showing the cash payment over and above the registered sale deeds. Therefore, the Ld. AO has failed to discharge his onus of proof especially when addition has been made under “deeming fiction”. e) The Ld. CIT(A) also stated that the Ld. AO has failed to prove the payment in cash by the respondent. 6. Perusal of the findings and decision of Ld. CIT(A), as reproduced hereinbefore, shows thatthe Ld. CIT(A) has rightly accepted the submission of the respondent and noticed as under: a) the soft files are unsigned and incomplete; b) The details of payment cheque are left blank; c) No proof of any advance cheque on record; d) No mention of cash payment; e) Gap of 1 to 3 years between soft files and actual sale; f) Soft files were not executed; g) Actual purchase meeting the stamp valuation rates; h) Submission of the appellant finds support from the statement of one of the sellers which also proved the finding of the AO wrong; 13 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. i) The AO failed to prove the payment in cash by the appellant. 7. We note further, the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed findings after perusing all the facts, assessment order and submission made before him. The findings given by him and decision arrived at are well reasoned and speaking one, therefore, the respondent strongly place reliance on the said findings and decision. 8. Under the facts and circumstances, considering the facts, circumstances and legal position as narrated above, addition of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Act has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) by passing a well-reasoned speaking orderand we rely on the same. In addition to the above written submission, the assessee also filed a common paper book for both the assessment years, which is as under- S. No. Nature of Documents Page No. 1. Print of unsigned and incomplete soft copy tilted as ‘Ikrarnama’ of Plot No. 60, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur dated 06.10.2013 wherein one party is stated to be Dr. Prakash Dayal (ASUS Laptop of Shri Nitin Chordia). 1 – 4 2. Print of unsigned and incomplete soft copy tilted as ‘Ikrarnama’ of Plot No. 60, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur dated 06.10.2013 wherein one party is stated to be Prabhat Dayal (ASUS Laptop of Shri Nitin Chordia). 5 – 8 3. Print of unsigned and incomplete soft copy tilted as ‘Ikrarnama’ of Plot No. 60, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur dated 06.10.2013 wherein one party is stated to be Prabhat Dayal HUF (ASUS Laptop of Shri Nitin Chordia). 9 – 13 4. Copy of letter, dated 23.05.2015, sent by Shri Prakash Dayal to Arihant Enterprises. 14 5. Copy of Statement of Shri Prakash Dayal 15 – 20 6. Copy of registered sale deed, dated 13.10.2014, of Plot No. 60, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur executed between Shri Prabhat Dayal H.U.F. (through Karta: Shri Prabhat Dayal) and the Appellant. 21 – 32 14 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. 7. Copy of registered sale deed, dated 11.02.2015, of Plot No. 60, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur executed between Shri Prabhat Dayal and the Appellant. 33 – 54 8. Copy of registered sale deed, dated 02.09.2016, of Plot No. 60, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur executed between Shri Dr. Prakash Dayal and the Appellant. 55 – 72 9. Copy of registered sale deed, dated 22.11.2016, of Plot No. 60, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur executed between Smt. Anjali Lodha and the Appellant. 73 – 83 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. In the present appeal the revenue while challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) raised the only ground related to direction for deleting the addition of Rs.3,30,00,000/- u/s 69 which was based on incriminating material found and seized in the laptop. No addition can be made and sustained only on the basis of an unsigned unexecuted draft agreement to sale found from the premises of the party without any other collaborative evidence supporting the factum of payment of cash by the assessee under the alleged document. The said ATS never culminated into a complete transaction by execution of the registered sale deed and the assessee never purchased the property as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the ATS. The time of purchase as per registered sale deed, the amount of consideration, the advance payment by cheque, are all different and can in no way be linked to the ATS. On this note, it is clearly discernable that the ATS is a dumb 15 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. document and nothing more. Moreover, in the ATS, there is no mention of any cash payments having been made out of the agreed sale consideration. Going by the AO’s logic that agreement is executed and thereafter sale deed is executed, the practice is also of receiving the on-money in cash, which is duly mentioned in the ATS. There being no such covenant in the ATS, only on the basis of suspicion it can’t be held that the difference in the sale consideration as per ATS and registered sale deed has taken place in cash and the assessee cannot be saddled with tax liability on the basis of such a baseless finding. 8. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has examined the issue in details and passed a well reasoned and speaking order after analysing the stand of the AO and the explanation of the assessee. We are in complete agreement with the views expressed by him and feel that the appellate order passed by him does not call for any intervention. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. The facts of the case in ITA no. 1525/JPR/2024 is similar to the case in ITA No. 1520/JPR/2024 and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the material available on record. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts, and the grounds raised by the Revenue and the arguments of both the parties in ITA no. 1525/JPR/2024. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in ITA No.1520/JPR/2025 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 shall apply mutatis mutandis 16 ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024 Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. in ITA No. 1525/JPR/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Based on this observation, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. Ground no. 2 being general does not require any adjudication. In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no. 1525/JPR/2024 also stands dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in terms of the observation so made herein above. Order pronounced in the open Court 06/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ xxu xks;y ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (Gagan Goyal) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/05/2025. *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant-DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Madhu Chordia, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 1520 & 1525/JPR/2024} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "