The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Surat V. M/s. P. Maganalal & Sons, Surat

ITA 296/SRT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5029 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 68; 132; 143(3); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 296/SRT/2023 (AY 2019-20) (Hearing in Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Central Circle-2, Surat, Room No.503, 5 th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Vs M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 5/556, Main Road, Haripura, Surat [PAN : AADFP 2741 E] अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by Shri Ravi Kant Gupta – CIT-DR स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of hearing 25.06.2024 उɮघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of pronouncement 13.08.2024 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of ld. Commissione`r of Income tax (Appeals)-4, Surat, dated 16.02.2023 for assessment year (AY) 2019-20, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Surat under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 25.05.2021. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to Rs.38,577/- as against addition of Rs.1,92,88,675/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act of the I.T. Act i.e., unexplained credits despite the fact that the assessee has filed short form of the name, and, failed to furnish the complete name, address, confirmations from the parties / persons from whom cash was received which is clearly mentioned in the assessment order thereby failed to establish identity and creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 2 2. without prejudice the ground No.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to Rs.38,577/- as commission income as against addition of Rs.1,92,88,675/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that if these transactions were regular business activities of the assessee, then why commission has not been accounted for by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to Rs.5,08,400/- as against addition of Rs.14,60,400/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act of the I.T. Act i.e., unexplained credits entirely believing the story/submission of the assessee and despite the fact that the assessee has filed short form of the name, and, failed to furnish the complete name, address, confirmations from the parties/persons from whom cash was received which is clearly mentioned in the assessment order thereby failed to establish identity and creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. 4. Without prejudice to and in addition to the grounds No.1 to 3, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the principles of “Human Probability Test” i.e., preponderance of probabilities which is applicable for Income Tax proceedings. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)- 4, Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6.It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that the AO may be restored to the above extent” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of courier/ angadiya, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 on 30.09.2019 declaring total income of Rs.5,25,560/-. Subsequently, a search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 29.03.2019 at assesses ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 3 premises at shop No.138 Govinda Complex, Char Rasta, Silvassa Road, Vapi. At the time of search, certain incriminating documents and cash was found and seized. Consequent upon search action, case of assessee was centralized. During the assessment, Assessing Officer noted that in the search action, cash of Rs.13,00,400/- and Rs.1,60,000/- were found. During the course of search action, the manager of assessee, Shri Jitendra Ishwar Lal Patel, failed to substantiate source of cash found. The Assessing Officer further noted that during search, documents Annexure-A-1 to A-6 containing certain transactions were also seized. The Assessing Officer prepared a summary of transactions recorded on Annexure-A1 to A-6 in para-5.1 of assessment order. The Assessing Officer was of the view that there was a total transaction of Rs.1.93 crores appearing on the seized documents. The assessee was asked to furnish complete details of these transactions with supporting evidence by issuing detailed show-cause notice by referring the afore-mentioned transactions as to why the transactions appearing in the seized should not be treated as the unaccounted income. The assessee filed its reply. The contents of reply of assessee is recorded on pages 6 to 9 of the assessment order. The assessee in its reply submitted that during the search action conducted on 29.03.2019, a cash of Rs.13,00,400/- was found at Vapi office. The assessee furnished copy of cash book of Vapi branch for the month of March, 2019 and submitted that Rs.9,50,00/- was received on 28.03.2019 from their main office at Surat, which could be verified from the main branch and Rs.5,08,0000/- was received from various parties at Vapi branch on 28.03.2019, which can be verified from the cash book of Vapi branch; copy of cash book was furnished. Against various ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 4 Annexures, assessee also given their explanation. About Annexure-A/1, assessee explained that Annexure-A is cash received book consists of cash received from their clients for delivery as per their instruction at the branches at relevant stations. Annexure-A/2 is a cutting book (bhariyan), wherein transaction and cash received from the clients from various branches in Gujarat and Mumbai on which, they have paid GST on commission, on the cash received. About Annexures-A-3, A-4 and A-5, they explained that these are delivery challans, wherein they were entering the cash received from various branches from Gujarat and Mumbai along with name of the sender and delivery, the same as per the instruction of their clients. In the delivery challan mentioned, branches which have received cash, name of sender, city and name of recipients with mobile number, as and when available. About Annexure-A-6, the assessee has explained that it has loose paper wherein they have entered the transaction of cash received in Vapi from the constituents to other branches in Gujarat and Mumbai to deliver the same as per the instruction of sender. The assessee also explained the modus operandi of their business wherein they explained that on receipt of cash, they prepared cash receipt, then prepared “bhartiyan” then cash delivered to respective branches, respective branches prepared delivery challan and delivery cash to constituents / clients. The assessee explained their modus operandi business submitted that they are in the business of Angadiya i.e., courier / carting agent which collects posts, parcel, packets, valuable like cash, bullions, diamond etc., from constituents at various branches in Gujarat, Mumbai and delivered the same as per instruction of sender at branches at relevant station. The assessee ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 5 received service charges / commission for rendering their services to the clients for transferring such posts, parcel, packets, valuable like cash, bullions, diamond etc., from one station to other stations as per instruction of constituents. The assessee works like a courier / transport agency like postal service, whatever cash valuable, it receives during the course of its business, it remains in the possession as courier / bailee and they do not become the owner, ownership of articles remains with senders/ receivers. In their business, there is no modus operandi to verify the correctness of name and address given by their clients (constituents) or to verify the contents of article. The practice follows is that after receiving the article from constituent receipts are issued to them and after recording them in “bhartiyan” i.e., the daily sheets, they are sent to various branches to daily services and delivered. The assessee also furnished name and address, mobile number and their confirmative signatures about cash received by assessee. The assessee submitted that there is no justification for treating the transactions appearing in the seized documents as unaccounted income. The assessee further explained that transactions appearing in Annexure-A/6 pertaining to assessment years 2018- 19 and 2019-20. In the second seized document to the tune of Rs.60,88,417/- of assessment year 2018-19 and Rs.1,92,88,675/- of assessment year 2019- 20 respectively and treating it as unaccounted income of the assessee-firm is totally irrelevant and against the facts of the case, and modus operandi of business of assessee such transaction was never credited or debited in the cash book. On receipt of cash, it is delivered to the branch office. In the branch office it is not debited in the cash book at the time of payment. The cash ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 6 received from the constituents for transferring other branches is treated just like commodity. The assessee-firm never utilizes its own cash as per cash book for making such delivery. There is no question of making payment to the constituents out of cash balance of the assessee-firm. The transaction is not belonged to assessee-firm. The assessee act as an agent of constituents and only eligible for commission income, which is already accounted for as “khep income” in the books of account. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer treated the cash found at the time of search as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act and also treated the transaction recorded on seized materials Annexures-A/1 to A/6 as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act by taking view that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence of cash found during search action for want of complete details. It was also held that the submission of assessee cannot be plausible and the assessee furnished partial details and proceedings are getting time barred and no time could be provided to assessee for filing further details. The assessing officer also made addition of Rs. 14,60,400/- by taking view that during search action cash of Rs. 13,00,400/- and Rs. 160,000/- was found and the Manager of assessee firm failed to explain the source of such cash in his office. Aggrieved by the additions made in the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed detailed written submission. The submissions of assessee are recorded in para-6.2 of the appellate order. The assessee in its submission stated that Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 and added total amount of Rs.2.07 crore to the total income of assessee. The ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 7 assessee further stated that provisions of section 68 of the Act is not applicable in case of assessee. For invocation of provisions of Section 68, a sum should be credited in the books of account of assessee and that assessee offered no explanation about nature and source or the explanation provided by him is not in the satisfactory opinion of the Assessing Officer. For invoking provisions of Section 68, a sum should be credited in the books of assessee that in the present case, no credit or debit entry are found in the books of assessee, so section 68 cannot be invoked. Seized amount does not belong to assessee- firm so it was never debited or credited but assessee acted as courier / transport agency in a specified manner. The assessee furnished cash book recorded of day-to-day cash received and payment, journal is a log of day-to- day transaction, ledger account all entries have details of all accounts which can be used to prepare the financial statement. Daily cash register of details of client service rendered and fees received. During search action, what was seized cash received book which is, in fact, a voucher book, which records the parcel including cash received by angadiya office in their course of business to be delivered at the place where their other office is situated. These are generally loose sheets of various vouchers which are handed over to a person when they handed over a parcel to assessee for delivery. The assessee also explained that as per Section 2(12A) of the Act, books include ledger, day books, cash books, whether kept in the written form or as print outs of data stored in floppy, disc, tape or any other electro-magnetic data storage device. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs V.C. Shukla [1998] (3) SCC 410 held that “Book” ordinarily means a collection ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 8 of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as book for they can be easily detached and replaced. The assessee also explained their modus operandi of business and committed while explain the nature and transaction recorded in Annexure/A1 to Annexure/A6. The assessee explained that Assessing Officer prepared from cash received vouchers in Annexure-A2 is a cutting book (bharatiya) and Annexures A/3, Annexure-A/4 and Annexure-A/5 are delivery challans and Annexure-A/6 is loose paper found at the assesses premises. Such vouchers are not books of account and the amounts received from constituents to delivery at location is also mentioned on Annexure-A/3. The Annexure-A/6 which cannot be termed as a book. Annexure-A/1 to Annexure-A/6 prepared by Department itself, contains all relevant details of sender’s name, receiver name, amount and place etc. These itself show that vouchers are self-evidentiary and self- explanatory about the nature of business of assessee-firm. To support their submissions, the assessee relied upon decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Patel Somabhai Kanchan Lal & Co. vs. DCIT [1977] 58 TTJ (Ahd.) 206, wherein it was held that provisions of Section 68 would be applicable only in case where assessee was found to be owner of cash, so provisions of Section 68 of the Act is not applicable in case of assessee. On addition of cash found during search, assessee submitted that in reply to show-cause notice, assessee has already explained the source of cash, which consists of Rs.9,50,000/- sent by Surat Head branch to Vapi branch, copy of cash book evidencing the said transfer was furnished regarding balance of Rs.5,08,400/- received by Vapi ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 9 branch for delivery at Ahmedabad branch name and address of the persons along with mobile number were furnished. The assessee, in addition to, objected that in the show-cause notice, Assessing Officer mentioned only Rs.1.92 crore for making addition to the total income of assessee. No such amount was mentioned in the show-cause notice, which in violation of principles of natural justice. The assessee further submitted that name, address and telephone number may be treated as additional evidence under Rule-46 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 4. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that it is an undisputed fact that assessee is engaged in “angadiya / courier business. The details during the course of search and post-search found from 24.05.2018 to 27.03.2019. These details are relating to transactions, wherein assessee in the course of business as “angadiya” accepted cash and transfers it to other branches as per instruction of their clients, which are evident from seized material found and relied by Assessing Office, wherein names and mobile number of receivers, were mentioned. Such facts prove that amounts were received by assessee for transferring to other branches in regular course of “Angadi / courier” business, maintained by assessee for such cash transactions which were seized during the search action, which show that amounts were received by assessee for transferring to other branches. Annexure-A/4 and Annexure-A/5 are the books which show that amounts were given at the destination to the person mentioned. The incriminating materials found during the search proved that documents are maintained in the course of “Angadiya” business and mentioned in Annexure-A/1, is a part of their business. The cash ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 10 received by assessee in the capacity of bailee and that assessee is not owner of said cash. The assessee handled such cash as service provider and not the owner. The ld CIT(A) held that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the business of “Angadiya” and only as commission of such transaction can be brought to tax. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the assessee claimed commission on these transactions were offered but unable to show as to why the commission amounts for each of the transaction is recorded in its books. The assessee has recorded a consolidated figure of commission for each of the day but bifurcation is not maintained, so it is very difficult to verify as to whether the commission of transfer found in the Annexure-A/1 to Annexure- A/6 are actually recorded in the books of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that income earned on “Angadi” business is set of transactions need to be separately taxed in addition to income offered by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), thus, considered Rs. 200/- per Rs. 1,00,000/- as a commission and worked out the commission income of Rs. 38,577/- and accordingly restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.38,577/- being commission income on such transactions. 5. Against the addition of cash found during search, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that cash of Rs.14,60,000/- (13,00,400 + 1,60,000) was found and seized. The Assessing Officer made the addition of such amount by holding that manager- in-charge, Shri Jitendra Ishwarlal Patel was failed to establish source of cash found at the time of search of Vapi branch office. In the show-cause notice, the amount is mentioned only Rs.13,00,400/-. The reply furnished by the assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer by taking view that assessee ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 11 failed to furnish complete information like name, address, confirmation and in absence of those, Assessing Office treated the entire cash as unexplained cash. The Ld. CIT(A) on considering the submission of assessee, which we have already recorded in earlier para, noted that on the date of search, cash balance of Rs.15,95,587/- at Surat head office, out of which, Rs.9,50,000/- was transferred to Vapi branch office. Out of which Rs. 7,92,000/- was cash-in- hand in Vapi branch office on the date of search. This fact was stated by Shri Jitendra Ishwarlal Patel, statement was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during search action. This aspect was explained before Assessing Officer with documentary evidence but such contention was not accepted by Assessing Officer. The assessee is maintaining books at Surat head office and was having average balance in the range of Rs.10.00 lakh to Rs.16.00 lakh, the cash balance at Vapi branch office of Rs.7,92,000/- needs to be accepted as necessary entry for transfer of cash was found in the books of assessee at Surat head office. Thus, the assessee was allowed relief to that extent. With regard to addition of Rs.1,60,000/-, in addition to Rs. 13,00,400/-, which were found at Vapi branch. The details of such cash are not available in Panchnama or inventory of cash found or seized. The said amount was not mentioned in the show-cause notice. Thus, the addition of Rs.1,60,000/- which was not part of show-cause notice was deleted. 6. For remaining cash balance of Rs.5,08,400/- (Rs.13,00,400/- - Rs.7,92,000/-) the ld CIT(A) held that the assessee explained that cash belonged to three parties (i) Kamlesh Madanlal Jain (ii) Himmat Kumbhar and (iii) Vinod Atmaram Kambli. It was submitted that said parties were called by DDIT in post-search ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 12 proceedings and they confirmed the amount given to Vapi branch office out of their own source. However, no documentary evidence was found relating to three transactions in the Vapi branch office. Those parties did not produce any documentary evidence in n support of their claim, therefore Rs.5,08,400/- was confirmed under section 69A by ld. CIT(A). Thus, out of total addition, assessee was allowed relief of Rs.9,52,000/-. Aggrieved from the order of ld CIT(A), the Revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submission of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Departmental-Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue and ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and perused the materials available on record carefully. Ground No.1 & 2 relates to restricting addition to the extent of Rs.38,577/- against the addition of Rs.1.92 crore under section 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer and submits that Assessing Officer prepared a summary of transactions recorded on Annexure-A/1 to Annexure-A/6 of aggregating Rs.1.92 crore. The assessee was given show cause notice to explain the nature of transactions. The assessee has given self-serving story about its “Angadiya” business without giving any details of the persons from whom such cash received. In absence of complete details, the transactions recorded in Annexure-A/1 to Annexure-A/6 treated as unexplained cash credit. Against Ground No.3, the Ld. CIT-DR of revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer and submits that during the search action cash of Rs.13,00,400/- and Rs.1.60,000/- at Vapi Office. The manager- in-charge of assessee failed to explain such cash found during search action. The Assessing Officer was very clear that cash found from the assessee was ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 13 not explained by assessee. Thus, treated the same as unexplained cash and added under section 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT-DR finally supported the order of Assessing Officer on both additions. 8. On the other hand, Ld.AR of the assessee supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR of the assessee submits that Section 68 of the Act is wrongly invoked by the Assessing Officer, section 68 is applicable when credit found in the books of assessee and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of cash. In the present case, there is no credit or debit entry found in the books of assessee. The amount on which Section 68 have been invoked are not credited anywhere in the books of assessee. The assessee explained all Annexures-A1 to Annexure-A/6 found and seized by the Assessing Officer. The assessee furnished relevant cash receipt vouchers which show the amount of commission charged and the relevant posting of commission of income is shown in the books of account. The addition of unaccounted income is totally mis- placed and against the modus operandi of the assesses business. In fact, transaction relating the cash belonging to parties is never credited or debited in the cash book. The assessee was working as service provider for delivery cash or the packets as per the instructions of their clients and earned commissions for such services. The persons employed with the assessee acts like courier firm. The ld AR of the assessee submits that in a series of decisions, the Surat bench as well as other bench of Tribunal held that in case of angadiya has made the addition @ Rs. 100/- per lakhs. The nature of business of assessee is not in dispute. To support his submission against ground No. 1 & 2 the Ld.AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions: ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 14  CIT Vs Patel Natverlal Chinubhai & Co. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 304 (Guj)  IT(SS)A No.48 & 50 & 45/SRT/2022 and 184 and 202/SRT/2022 ACIT vs. M/s Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co. 9. Against the ground No. 3, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that on the addition of cash found during the survey, the Assessing Officer made total addition of Rs.14,60,400/-, out of which the addition of Rs.1,60,000/- is totally illegal. The Assessing Officer issued show cause with regard to Rs.13,00,400/- only. The assessee during the assessment has shown that out of cash receipt, the assessee received Rs.9,50,000/- from Surat Office and remaining was received from clients. The assessee furnished copy of cash book of Vapi branch for the month of March, 2019 and submitted that Rs.9,50,000/- was received on 28.03.2019 from their main office at Surat, which could be verified from the main branch and Rs.5,08,0000/- was received from various parties at Vapi branch on 28.03.2019, which can be verified from the cash book of Vapi branch; copy of cash book was furnished. Though, entire cash found during search action was explained, yet the Assessing Officer added the entire amount. The ld CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee, yet the assessee has not challenged such finding. The ld AR of the assessee prayed for dismissal of revenues appeal. 10. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that during the course of assessment, the assessee was asked to explain the transaction mentioned on the seized documents Annexure-A-1 to A-6. The assessee furnished their explanation about each and every seized document, which we have recorded in earlier paras of this order. The assessee provided all the details available with ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 15 them. As per assessee they provided 95% details of their clients. The explanation of the assessee was nor accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1.92 Crore by taking view that actual details of the parties were not provided by the assessee. We find that the ld. CIT(A) restricted such addition to the extent of Rs. 38,577/-. The ld. CIT(A) while restricting the addition to that extent held that it is an undisputed fact that assessee is engaged in “angadiya / courier business”. The details during the course of search and post-search found from 24.05.2018 to 27.03.2019 only, which are relating to transaction of business as “angadiya” and accepted cash and transfers it to other branches as per instruction of their clients, which are evident from seized material found and relied by Assessing Office. The names and mobile number of receivers, were mentioned which prove that amounts were received by assessee for transferring to other branches in regular course of “Angadia / courier” business. The cash seized during the search action shows that amounts were received by assessee for transferring to other branches. Annexure-A/4 and Annexure-A/5 show that amounts were given at the destination to the person mentioned therein. It was held that the incriminating materials found during the search proved that documents are maintained in the course of “Angadiya” business and mentioned in Annexure- A/1, is a part of their business. The cash received from its customer by assessee in the capacity of bailee and that assessee is not owner of such cash. The assessee handled such cash as service provider and not the owner. The ld CIT(A) held that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the business of “Angadiya” and only as commission of such transaction can be brought to tax. ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 16 We find that the ld. CIT(A) specifically held that the assessee claimed commission such transactions but unable to show as to why the commission amounts for each of the transaction is recorded in its books. The assessee is recoding a consolidated figure of commission for each of the day but bifurcation is not maintained, so it is very difficult to verify as to whether the commission of transfer found in the seized documents viz; Annexure-A/1 to Annexure-A/6. The Ld. CIT(A) on considering overall facts was of the view that income earned on “Angadia” business on its set of transactions need to be separately taxed in addition to income offered by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), thus, estimated Rs. 200/- per Rs. 1,00,000/- as a commission on the transaction recorded in the seized material and worked out the commission income of Rs. 38,577/-. 11. Being a search case, we have independently examined the facts of the case. We find that there is no dispute about the business activities of the assessee. Undisputedly the assessee is in the business of courier / angadiya. We find that the assessee claimed that they have provided all the details available with them, including the mobile phone numbers of sender as well as recipient. No investigation from such details was carried out by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer presumed that the entire transaction recorded in the seized documents belongs to assessee. The additions are based on suspicion. The seized material also indicates the transfer of cash from one place to another place. It is settled position under the income tax proceedings that only income component is to be taxed and not the entire transaction. We find that this bench in ACIT Vs Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co. (supra) while considering the similar grounds of appeal, on similar transactions, wherein the ld CIT(A) estimated the ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 17 addition of similar transaction @ Rs. 200/- per lakhs, were upheld keeping in view that such commissions/ estimation of income is sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) with our additional observation. In the result. Ground No. 1 & 2 of the appeal of revenue are dismissed. 12. So far as other ground of appeal, which relates to restricting the addition to the extent of Rs. 5,08,400/- out of addition of Rs. 14,60,400/- is concerned, we find that out of total additions of Rs. 14,60,400/-, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- by taking view that no show cause notice to such amount was issued by Assessing Officer. Further, Rs. 7,92,000/- was received from Surat branch, which is duly recorded in the cash book was also accepted. However, addition of remaining of Rs.5,08,400/- was upheld as no documentary evidence was found relating to three transactions in the Vapi branch office at the time of search. Those parties did not produce any documentary evidence in n support of their claim, therefore Rs.5,08,400/- was confirmed under section 69A by ld. CIT(A). We find that out of total addition, assessee was allowed relief of Rs.9,52,000/-. We find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Patel Natwarlal Chinubhai & Co (supra) which is also case of similar business of “Angadia” held that when the assessee in support of cash seized during search has brought on record which shows that cash belongs to its particular branch office, the amount so seized cannot be added to assessees taxable income as unexplained money. Thus, in view of the decision of Jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal raised by the revenue, which we dismissed. ITA No.296/SRT/2023 (A.Y.19-20) M/s P. Maganlal & Sons 18 13. Ground No. 4 is alternative ground of appeal. No specific submissions were made by either of the party, even otherwise, we have affirmed the order of ld CIT(A) in our detailed discussion, thus, we do not find any merit in this ground as well. Resultantly dismissed. Ground No. 5 & 6 are general and needs no specific adjudication. 14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/08/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 13/08/2024 Dkp. Out Sourcing P.S Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy/ By order Sr. P.S/Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat