SHRI HARPAL YADAV, JAIPUR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1000/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7663 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRISH BEDI CIT A
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHILESH KATARIA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 69A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 & 2017-18 SHRI HARPAL YADAV 17, JAYAPURIYO KA BADH, SIRSI, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACOPH 3647 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHILESH KATARIA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI AMRISH BEDI (CIT) A LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 17/12/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/01/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-IV, JAIPUR BOTH DAT ED 29.05.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 & 2017-18 RE SPECTIVELY. SINCE BOTH THESE MATTERS ARE ARISING OUT OF SAME SEARCH P ROCEEDINGS AND INVOLVING COMMON ISSUES, BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HE ARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. IN ITA NO. 1000/JP/2019 FOR A.Y 2014-15, THE AS SESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019 SHRI HARPAL YADAV VS. ACIT 2 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 1 53A IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE, THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED. 2. RS. 235000/- THE LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF A LLEGED CASH PAYMENT OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THE LD. CIT(A ) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE SAME. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FARMER EARNING INCOME FROM AGRICULTUR E AS WELL AS DAIRY BUSINESS FOR LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND THERE IS NO CHA NGE IN THE SOURCE OF INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INC OME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,46,900/- ON 30.07.2014. A SEARCH WAS CONDU CTED IN THE CASE OF KEDIA AND YADAV GROUP AND IN CONSEQUENT OF THE SAME , ASSESSEES PREMISES WERE ALSO SEARCHED ON 19.11.2016. ACCORDIN GLY, NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 17.02.2017 AND IN CO MPLIANCE OF THE SAME, RETURN WAS E-FILED ON 14.08.2017 AT THE SAME TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,46,900/-. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE AO HAS NOTICED THAT AS PER PAGE 20-21 OF EXHIBIT NO. 2, CE RTAIN ENTRIES OF AMOUNT GIVEN AND RECEIVED WERE COMING FOR WHICH EXP LANATION WAS CALLED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINE D THAT HE IS NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH AMOUNT HAVING BEEN GIVEN OR TAKEN AND FURTHER, THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN CROSSED AND HENCE, NOT RELEVA NT. HOWEVER IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,35,000/- (KALU TAUJI- RS.1,10,000/-, RAJ KUMAR JI- RS.20,000 /-, SURAJMAL YADAV- RS. 1,05,000/-) WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE WHICH ON APPEAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND AGAI NST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019 SHRI HARPAL YADAV VS. ACIT 3 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE ENTRIES I N THE DIARY ARE NOT IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSEE IS AWARE OF ANY SUCH AMOUNT GIVEN OR TAKEN AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISOWNED THE E NTRIES MADE IN THE DIARY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTRIES IN THIS DI ARY WERE MADE BY SHRI JITENDRA YADAV, SON OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS EMPLOYED WITH THE RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. EVERY SPECIFIC SUBMISSION WAS MADE BEFO RE AO DATED 01.05.2018 WHICH READ AS UNDER: EXPLANATION ON AMOUNT OF RS.260000/- APPEARING ON EXHIBIT NO. 2/PAGE NO. 20, 21 & BACKSIDE THEREOF: YOUR GOODSELF HAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN SOME CASH RECEIPTS OF RS.260000/- APPEARING ON PAGE NO. 20, 21 & BACKSIDE OF 21 OF EXHIBIT 2. IN THIS REGAR D, PLEASE NOTE THAT FIRSTLY WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY SUM OF RS.26 0000/- EITHER IN SINGLE AMOUNT OR IN CUMULATIVE AMOUNT ON THE PAGES REFERRED BY YOUR GOODSELF. WE MAY ALSO SUBMIT THAT THE PAPER IN QUESTION IS NO T IN THE HAND WRITING OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AWA RE OF ANY OF SUCH AMOUNTS GIVEN OR TAKEN BY HIMSELF. IT MAY ALSO BE POINTED OUT THAT THESE NARRATIONS GIVEN ARE APPEARING CROSS ED AND THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT SOME INCORRECT NARRATION S OR DETAILS WERE WRONGLY WRITTEN AND THEREAFTER CROSSED. IN ANY CASE, THESE DETAILS WERE WRITTEN BY THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI JITENDRA YADAV WHO IS EMPLOYED WITH THE RAILWA Y DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE DISOWNS THE SAME. IF REQUIRED, THE DEPARTMENT MAY CALL UPON SHRI JITENDRA YADAV FOR CONFIRMING TH IS FACT AND WE ARE READY TO OFFER CO-OPERATION WHEREVER REQUIRED. ITA NO. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019 SHRI HARPAL YADAV VS. ACIT 4 THEREFORE, THE DETAILS APPEARING ON PAGE NO. 20, 21 & BACKSIDE OF 21 OF EXHIBIT 2 ARE OF NO SIGNIFICANCE AND HENCE, M AY PLEASE BE IGNORED. 5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AN AFFIDAVIT OF SH RI JITENDRA YADAV WAS ALSO SUBMITTED ALONGWITH SUBMISSION DATED 02.01 1.2018 AND IN THE AFFIDAVIT, SHRI JITENDRA YADAV HAS CLEARLY STATED T HAT THESE SPECIFIC ENTRIES WERE MADE BY HIM IN THE DIARY. THIS DISCHAR GES ASSESSEE FROM ITS LIABILITY TO EXPLAIN THE PAPER IN AS MUCH AS TH E SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY ACCEPTED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PAPERS. I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI JITEND RA YADAV, NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE FROM SHRI JITENDRA YADAV TO GET FURTHER CL ARIFICATION ON THESE ENTRIES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME DESERVE TO BE DE LETED. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SEIZED DOCUMENT FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF APPELLANT AND TRANSACTIO N ON THE SAME ARE WRITTEN IN CASH AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPL AIN THE SAID TRANSACTIONS AND THUS THE ONUS CAST ON HIM HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED AND THE ADDITION THUS HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). HE ACCORDINGLY SUPPORTED THE FIND INGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOESNT WANT TO PRESS G ROUND NO. 1 OF HIS APPEAL, HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A DOCUME NT MARKED AS PAGE 20-21 OF EXHIBIT NO. 2 SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE ITA NO. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019 SHRI HARPAL YADAV VS. ACIT 5 CERTAIN ENTRIES OF AMOUNT GIVEN/TAKEN IN CASH HAS B EEN WRITTEN. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT NO QUESTION WAS ASKED FROM THE ASS ESSEE REGARDING THESE TRANSACTIONS AS PART OF HIS STATEMENT RECORDE D U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAID ENTRIES AND THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID ENTRIES WERE NOT IN HIS HANDWRITING AND WERE MADE BY HIS SO N, SHRI JITENDRA YADAV AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI JITENDRA YADAV WAS A LSO FILED WHERE HE HAS OWNED UP THE ENTRIES AND THE TRANSACTIONS SO RE FLECTED THEREIN AS MADE BY HIM RELATING TO FAMILY TRANSACTION AND EXPE NSES. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE OR FINDING DISPUTING T HE CONTENTS OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT AND THE SAME THUS REMAIN UNREBUTTED BEFORE US. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WHERE SHRI JITENDRA YADAV HAS OWNED UP TH E ENTRIES AND THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DISCHAR GED THE ONUS CAST ON HIM AND THE PRESUMPTION U/S 132(4A) CANNOT BE DRAWN AGAINST HIM. IN THE RESULT, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR IMPUGNED ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN ITA NO. 1001/JP/2019 FOR A.Y 2017-18, THE AS SESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 15 3A IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE, THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED. 2. RS. 876197/- THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S 69A OF THE ACT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN TREATING RS. 87 6197/- AS ITA NO. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019 SHRI HARPAL YADAV VS. ACIT 6 UNEXPLAINED MONEY THOUGH NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN TREATING RS. 87 6197/- AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY AND RATHER, AT THE BEST, IT MAY BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FARMER EARNING INCOME FROM AGRICULTUR E AS WELL AS DAIRY BUSINESS FOR LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND THERE IS NO CHA NGE IN THE SOURCE OF INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. A SEARC H WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF KEDIA AND YADAV GROUP AND IN CONSEQUENT OF THE SAME, ASSESSEES PREMISES WAS ALSO SEARCHED ON 19.11.2016 . LATER ON, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HI S RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 4,54,370/- ON 10.03.2018. T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS NOTICED CERTAIN DETAILS ON PAGE NO. 15 OF EXHIBIT NO. 2 WHEREBY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8,76,197/- W AS APPEARING AS SAVINGS. THE LD. AO ASKED FOR THE EXPLANATION OF THE SAME IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS ME RELY A LOOSE PAPER WHICH IS HAVING NO DATE OR PERIOD AND THUS, HAVING NO RELEVANCE BEING A DUMB DOCUMENT. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THE SUBMISS ION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,76,197/- AS UN EXPLAINED MONEY AND ADDED THE SAME U/S 69A OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEE N CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE LD. AR DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019 SHRI HARPAL YADAV VS. ACIT 7 WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE AND SUCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR VALUABLE ARTICLE IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AN D THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE MONEY AND THE VALUE OF THE BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OT HER VALUABLE ARTICLE MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. 11. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A PERUSAL OF ABOVE PROVIS ION WOULD SHOW THAT THIS SPECIFIC PROVISION CAN ONLY BE APPLIED WH ERE THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE OWNER OF ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOT A SINGLE RUPEE UNEXPLAINED MONEY HAS BEEN FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASS ESSEE NOR THERE IS ANY SEIZURE OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLER Y OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY PHYSICAL FIND ING OF SUCH UNEXPLAINED MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALU ABLE ARTICLE, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION CANNOT COME INTO PICTURE . THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 69A BY THE AO IS EXTREMELY FAR-FETCHED WITH OUT THERE BEING ANY PHYSICAL FINDING OR ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF ANY SUCH UNEXPLAINED MONEY, BULLION, JEWEL LERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE. THEREFORE, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THIS ADDITION DOES NOT EXIST AND HENCE, THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETE D. 12. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH SOME NOTI NG OF WORK DONE AND EXPENSES IS APPEARING ON THIS EXHIBIT , HOWEVER NO OTHER DETAIL LIKE DATE OF TRANSACTIONS OR THE PERIOD TO WHICH IT RELA TES OR FROM WHOM THE ITA NO. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019 SHRI HARPAL YADAV VS. ACIT 8 PAYMENT IS RECEIVED OR TO WHOM PAYMENT IS MADE IS A PPEARING. FURTHER, AS SUBMITTED IN SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPH, NO OTHER CORR OBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THESE PAPERS ARE NOTHING BUT DUMB DO CUMENTS. IT IS A VERY WELL-SETTLED LAW THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F SUCH DUMB DOCUMENT CAN BE MADE. 13. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTE LY NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH INCOME IS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT TOO FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ADDITION BY THE AO IS MERELY BAS ED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS AND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NO ADDIT ION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE. 14. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ALLEGED PAPERS ON THE BASIS OF WHI CH THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE PERTAINS TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. THE PAPERS BEAR NO DATE OR YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE AO WAS INCO RRECT IN CONSIDERING THE SAME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS AL SO SUBMITTED THAT IF THE INVESTIGATING TEAM OR THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT SOME INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PAPERS THEN THE Y MAY HAVE RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSU E BUT A PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT WOULD SHOW THAT NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE F ROM THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE LD. AO ERRED IN MAKIN G ADDITION ON MERITS ALSO AND HENCE THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 15. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PERUSAL OF PAPERS WOULD REVEAL T HAT IT IS RELATED TO SOME WORK DONE AND THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST OF A NY INVESTMENTS. ITA NO. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019 SHRI HARPAL YADAV VS. ACIT 9 THEREFORE, AT BEST THE SAME MAY BE ASSESSED AS REGU LAR SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT OTHERWISE. THEREFORE , IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO HAS TO BE DEL ETED EVEN ON THIS ASPECT. 16. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SEIZED DOCUMENT FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF APPELLANT AND THE AO HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS AS PARA 5.3 OF HIS ORDER WHEREIN THE ASSESS EE HAS ACCEPTED THE NET SAVINGS OF RS 8,76,197/- AND BASIS THE SAME, TH E ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE U/S 69A OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY SUPPORTED T HE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOESNT WANT TO PRESS G ROUND NO. 1 OF HIS APPEAL, HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2, WE REFER TO SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED AS PAGE 1 5 OF EXHIBIT NO. 2 AND FIND THAT THE SAME CONTAINS CERTAIN FIGURES, HO WEVER, EXCEPT AT ONE PLACE WHERE SAVINGS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AGAINST THE A MOUNT OF RS 876,197, THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY PARTICULARS IN TERMS OF NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS, PARTIES WITH WHOM THE TRANSACTIONS WE RE UNDERTAKEN, THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS, ETC. EVEN THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER HAS STATED THAT IT APPEARS TO BE PAYMENT RECEIVED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THERE IS NO QUESTIO N WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF HIS STATEMENT REC ORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WHERE THE AO HIMSELF IS NOT CL EAR ABOUT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION WHICH IS THE VERY FOUNDATION FOR DET ERMINATION OF TAXABILITY OF SUCH TRANSACTION, THE TAX LIABILITY O N SUCH TRANSACTION CANNOT ITA NO. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019 SHRI HARPAL YADAV VS. ACIT 10 BE FASTENED ON THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE DOCUMENT SO FOUND REVEAL SOME WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND GIVEN THA T THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE DIARY BUSINESS, THE NET SAVINGS SO DETERMINE D CAN REASONABLY BE RELATED TO THE DIARY BUSINESS ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING OR CORROBORATION RELATING TO ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. IN THE RESULT, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR IMPUGN ED ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DIRECT ED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/01/2021. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18/01/2021. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI HARPAL YADAV, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, 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. 1000 & 1001/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR