DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, Central Circle-3, Jaipur V. Shri Rajendra Kumar Kedia, A-15, Shyam Nagar, near Nadi Ka Phatak, Bainad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 909/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3363 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BK GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 274; 158BC; 72; 13; 69

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B 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. 909/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KEDIA, A-15, SHYAM NAGAR, NEAR NADI KA PHATAK, BAINAD ROAD, JHOTWARA, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACRPK 7613 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI B. K. GUPTA (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (C.A.) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/11/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/11/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV, JAIPUR DATED 26.04.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. 2. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 19.11.2016 IN THE CASE OF KEDIA & YADAV GROUP, JAIPUR TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE BELONGS. VARIOUS ASSETS/ BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZE D AS PER ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 2 ANNEXURE PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. AFTE R SERVING A STATUTORY NOTICES AND PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS FRAMED BY THE AO THEREBY MAKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UN ACCOUNTED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE PREF ERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDER ING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO A ND THUS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE HA S FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED H EREINBELOW:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW THAT THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 1,26,84,602/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNAC COUNTED INVESTMENT RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THA T THE DOCUMENT FOUND SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, ON WHICH AN ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO IS A DUMB DOCUMENT. 4. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE INT ERRELATED AND INTERCONNECTED AND RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 3 DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE LD . DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE HAD RELIED UPON THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN HOLD ING THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH AN ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO IS A DUMP DOCU MENT. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO RELIED UPON PARA 5 AND 5.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5. DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT THE RESIDENTIA L PREMISES OF SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KEDIA AT KEDIA HOUS E, BENAR ROAD, GANESH NAGAR, NEAR NADI KA PHATAK, JHOTWARA, JAIPUR, SEVERAL INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS W ERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE INVENTORIZED AS ANNEXUREAS, EXHIBITS- 01 TO 05. ON PAGE NO. 10 OF E XHIBIT 4 OF ANNEXURE AS, CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WERE FOUND RECORDED. ON THIS PAGE, RS.1,20,80,572/- CASH AND R S. 6,04,030/- STAMP WERE WRITTEN. DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION OF THE WRITINGS ON THE SAID PAPER. IN I TS REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT, THE SAME REPRESENTS CONLCULATION OF REGISTRATIO N CHARGES OR A LAND IF COSTING RS. 12080572/- @ 5%=604030/- JUST ESTIMATION NO ACTUAL TRANSACTION. . '...THAT WITH REGARD TO PAGE 10 OF ANNEXURE A-4 FOU ND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS SUBMITTED IN THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BEFORE THE AD IT (INV.), THE SAID PAPER CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS OF SOME LAND SITUATED AT RAJAW AS, TEHSIL AMER WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY THE COMPANY M/S ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 4 SALASAR BALAII DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., A GROUP COMPAN Y OF ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS DULY RECORDE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY. THE COPY OF T HE REGISTERED SALE DEED IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE AND RECORD...' 5.1 THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED B UT NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE. ON PERUSAL OF THE NOTINGS ON THE SAID PAPER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT OF CASH PAID AND STAMP DUTY ARE WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SE NOTINGS PERTAIN TO ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS AND ARE NOT MERE ESTIMATIONS AS CLAIMED. FURTHER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS PERTAIN TO M/S SAL ASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS P. LTD. IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE, A S THE CASH AND STAMP DUTY AMOUNT NOTED ON THE SAID PAPER ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE NOTED IN THE REGISTERED SALE D EED SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE CASH AMOUNT PAYMENT AND STAMP DUTY PAYMENT RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT RELATABLE TO THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE AN UNACCO UNTED PAYMENT OF 21,20,80,572/- IN CASH FOR MAKING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND ALSO PAID STAMP DUTY OF 26,04,030/- ON THE SAME. THUS, THE AMOUNT OF 21,26,84,602/- IS HELD AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2017-18 AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAB(1)(C) ARE ALSO INITIATED ON THIS ISSUE ON AC COUNT OF DETECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT BY WAY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S 271AAB(1)(C) OF THE ACT, 1961. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR REITERATED THE SAME AR GUMENTS AS WERE RAISED BY THE AO BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. AR DRAWN OU R ATTENTION TO PARA ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 5 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AND THE SAME ARE ALSO R EPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE, THE MAIN PORTION OF WHICH AR E REPRODUCED BELOW. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 1.3: IN ALL THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1,26,84, 602/- U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ROUGH NOTINGS FOUND NOTED ON AN UNDATED LOOSE PAPER FOUND AND SEI ZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BEARING NO SIGNATURE. BRIEF FACTS PERTAINING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, VARIOUS LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND A ND INVENTORISED. OUT OF THESE PAPERS ID. AO ALLEGED TH AT PAGE 10 OF EXHIBIT-4 OF ANNEXURE AS CONTAINED CERTAIN NOTINGS OF CASH TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ACCORDING TO ID. AO WAS INVESTMENT BY ASSESSEE IN CASH IN ACQUISITION OF SO ME PROPERTY OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED SOURCES (APB-4). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ID.A0 SOUGHT EXPLANATION ON SUCH PAPER. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITT ED BEFORE ID.A0 THAT THE SAID PAPER CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS OF SOME LAND SITUATED AT RAJAW AS, TEHSIL AMER WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY A COMPANY M/S SALASAR B ALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., A GROUP COMPANY BELONGING TO ASSESSEE AND ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID COMPANY. ALSO, COPY OF REGISTE RED SALE DEED WAS FURNISHED BEFORE ID.A0(APB 5-14). EXPLANAT ION SO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY ID.A0 AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN WITH RESPECT TO SUCH NO TING WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 6 SUBSEQUENTLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21.03.2018 WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE STATING THAT 'ON PAGE NO. 10 OF EXHIBIT 4 OF ANNEXURE AS SEIZED FROM YOUR RESIDENCE, CERTAIN TRA NSACTIONS WERE FOUND RECORDED. ON THIS PAGE, RS.1,20,80,572/- CASH AND RS. 6,04,030/- ARE WRITTEN. ON PERUSAL OF THESE TRA NSACTIONS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT RS. 1,20,80,572/- IS CASH PAID BY Y OU FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AS WELL AS FOR EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. THUS, PLEASE EXPLAIN AS TO W HY THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,26,84,602/- MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS YOUR ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ' IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT SAID NOTING AS ME NTIONED IN SHOW CAUSE WAS NOT IN THE HANDWRITING OF ASSESSEE O R HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND IS A ROUGH NOTING. IT WAS SUBMIT TED BEFORE ID.A0 THAT ASSESSEE HAD NEVER ENTERED INTO ANY SUCH TRANSACTION AND RATHER NOTING ON SUCH PAGE APPEARED TO BE SOME ROUGH NOTHING IN RESPECT OF SOME RANDOM ENQUIR Y MADE WITH RESPECT TO STAMP DUTY CHARGES IN RESPECT OF SOME LAND WHICH WAS NEVER PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE, HOWEVER EXPL ANATION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ID.A0 AND ADDITION WAS MADE OF ENTIRE AMOUNT U/S 69 BY ALLEGING THE SAME AS UNACCO UNTED INVESTMENT. IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT S UCH PAPER WAS UNDATED AND NOTING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SUCH PA PER, I.E. ON WHICH REGISTRY NUMBER OF LAND PURCHASED BY SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. WAS MENTIONED, WAS REGISTERED ON 17.10.2012, I.E. IN A.Y.2013-14. IN THIS SCENARIO, IT IS BEYOND IMAGINATION THAT ON WHAT BASIS, AO HAS TREATED THE NOTING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOCUMENT AS PERTAINING TO A.Y . 2017-18 THAT TOO BELONGING TO ASSESSEE. FURTHER, NEITHER ANY ASSET FOR WHICH THE DETAILS AP PEARING ON SUCH PAPER WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF ASSESSEE AS A RESULT OF SEARCH NOR ANY REGISTERED DOCUMENT CONTAINING SUCH DETAILS WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE NAME O F ASSESSEE NOR ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS BROUG HT ON RECORD DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THUS ADVE RSE ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 7 INFERENCE DRAWN IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SOLELY ON T HE BASIS OF A LOOSE PAPER IS AN ARBITRARY ACT AND NOT IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SPECK OF EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE DETAILS WAS EVER EXEC UTED BY ASSESSEE OR IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE, AND THUS IT CA NNOT BE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS EVEN ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSA CTION WHERE SUCH AMOUNT IS INVOLVED. IN FACT, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO QUERY WAS MADE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH DOCUMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO EFFORT WAS MADE BY ID. AO T O LOCATE AND BRING ON RECORD THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE LAND STATED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED I.E. THE PLOT NO., AREA, LOCATION, M AP OF THE SCHEME, THUS ADDITION MADE BY SIMPLY HOLDING THAT A SSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED IS NOT C ONCLUSIVE MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LAND IS A COMMODITY WHIC H CAN BE IDENTIFIED AND CANNOT BE SOLD WITHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DOCUMENT CALLED OWNERSHIP / TITLE DEEDS . LD. AO HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE LAND ALLEGED AS PURCHASED BY THE AS SESSEE AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR BY MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN ARBITRARY M ANNER HAS MADE THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT. FROM SUCH ACTION OF ID. AO, IT APPEARS THAT SHE WAS BENT UPON TO MAKE THE ADDITION FOR THE AMOUNT NOTED AT PAGE 10 OF EXHIBIT 4 OF ANNEXURE AS WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO CROSS VERIFY THE TRANSACTIONS FROM THE EXTERNAL SOURCES MORE PARTICU LARLY WHEN ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY SATISFIED HER WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER NOTINGS ON THE SAID PAPER WITH PROPER AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO EFFORT WAS MADE BY LD. AO T O CORROBORATE HER OBSERVATIONS BY BRINGING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL WHICH COULD SHOW THAT ANY SORT OF PAYMENT OF RS.1,26,84,602/- W AS EVER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, SHE HAS MERELY ACTED ON THE PRESUMPTION TO THIS EFFECT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE SO-CALLED NOTING WHICH ARE NOTHING BUT ROUGH SCRIBBLING NOTED BY UNKNOWN PERSON. ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 8 RELIANCE IS ALSO ON THE DECISION OF HONIBLE RAJASTH AN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DT VS. R.Y. DURLABHJI REPORTED IN 21 1-1TR-178 WHEREIN AT PAGE 189, THE HORN , LE COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: IN DHEKESWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V. CIT (1954) 26 IT R 775 (SC), OMAR SALAY MOHAMED SAIT V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (S C) AND LALCHAND BHAGAT ARNBICA RAM V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 28 8 (SC), IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN HELD BY THE APEX COURT THAT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN MERE SUSPICION IN SUPPORT OF AN ASSESSMENT AND MERE SUSPICION CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF PROOF F OR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. 25 TAX WORLD 87 CIT V/S RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA (RAJ. HIGH COURT) HELD THE ASSESSMENT IS TO BE FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL THAT HAS COME IN POSSESSION OF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH IS THE FOUNDATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE AO I S NOT CONFERRED WITH POWER TO MAKE ESTIMATION OF INCOME D EHORS THE MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION. 72 ITD 342 D.A. PATEL VS. DCIT (MUM) SECTION 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN SEARCH CASES COMPUTATION OF UNDISCL OSED INCOME BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1986 TO 15.07.1996 IN S EARCH CASES COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHETHER SIMPLY BECAUSE A SHEET OF PAPER WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH AT PREMISES OF ASSESSEE, HE COULD NOT BE SADDLED WITH TAX LIABI LITY WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE CONNECTING APPELLANT TO SEIZE D PAPER HELD, YES. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CBI VS. V.C. S HUKIA & OTHERS HA'S QUOTED CERTAIN JUDGEMENTS OF THE HIGH C OURTS WHICH HAVE BEARING ON THE ISSUE (PAGE 1418 PARA 36 38) AS UNDER: '36. IN YESUVADIYAN VS. SUBBA NAICKER, AIR 1919 MAD RAS 132 ONE OF THE LD. JUDGES CONSTITUTING THE BENCH HAD TH IS TO SAY: 'S. 34, EVIDENCE ACT, LAYS DOWN THAT THE ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, REGULARLY KEPT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS A RE RELEVANT, BUT SUCH A STATEMENT WILL NOT ALONE BE SUFFICIENT T O CHARGE ANY PERSON WITH LIABILITY. THAT MERELY MEANS THAT THE P LAINTIFF CANNOT OBTAIN A DECREE BY MERELY PROVING THE EXISTE NCE OF ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 9 CERTAIN ENTRIES IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EVEN THOUGH THOSE BOOKS ARE SHOWN TO BE KEPT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. HE WILL HAVE TO SHOW FURTHER BY SOME INDEPENDENT EV IDENCE THAT THE ENTRIES REPRESENT REAL AND HONEST TRANSACT IONS AND THAT THE MONEYS WERE PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE ENTRIES. THE LEGISLATURE HOWEVER DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY PARTIC ULAR FORM OR KIND OF EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AND I TAKE IT THAT ANY RELEVANT FACTS WHICH CAN BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EVIDENCE ACT WOU LD BE SUFFICIENT CORROBORATION OF THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IF TRUE.' WHILE CONCURRING WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS THE OT HER LD. JUDGE STATED AS UNDER: 'IF NO OTHER EVIDENCE BESIDES THE ACCOUNTS WERE GIV EN, HOWEVER STRONGLY THOSE ACCOUNTS MAY BE SUPPORTED BY THE PROBABILITIES, AND HOWEVER STRONG MAY BE THE EVIDEN CE AS TO THE HONESTY OF THOSE WHO KEPT THEM, SUCH CONSIDERAT ION COULD NOT ALONE WITH REFERENCE TO S. 34, EVIDENCE ACT, BE THE BASIS OF THE DECREE.' THUS, HON'BLE APEX COURT IN ABOVE JUDGMENT HAS OBSE RVED THAT EVEN IF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS ARE FOUND TO BE R ECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, SAME HAVE TO BE CORROBORATED WIT H INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE ANY LIABILI TY COULD BE FASTENED UPON ASSESSEE, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT C ASE, LOOSE PAPER FOUND IS NOT IN THE HANDWRITING OF ASSESSEE A ND HAS NO AUTHENTICITY AS THE SAME IS MERE A ROUGH NOTING WIT HOUT ANY DATE AND ANY DETAILS MENTIONED ON THE SAME IS NOTHI NG MORE THAN A DUMB DOCUMENT HAVING NO LEGAL VALIDITY AND A NY ADDITION BASED ON THIS PAPER DESERVES TO BE DELETED . IN THIS REGARD FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FO LLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: 35 TW 135 AC/7 - VS. KALINDEE RAIL NIRRNAN ENGG. LTD. (17 - AT; JAIPUR BENCH A') FURTHER HELD THAT WHEN A DOCUMENT DOES NOT SPEAK AN YTHING OR NO INTERPRETATION RELATING TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME EM ERGES OUT ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 10 FROM THE SAID DOCUMENTS, THEN SUCH A DOCUMENT HAS T O BE TREATED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. 21 TAX WORLD 358 ASHWANI KUMAR BHARDWAJ VFS DDT (LP R) WHETHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF WORKI NG PAPERS - HELD NO. IF THE PAPER DO NOT INDICATE MATERIALIZATI ON OF ANY FINANCIAL TRANSACTION, THEY HAVE TO BE READ AS IT I S. 67 7TJ 839 JAADAMBO RICE MILLS V/S ACIT (CHANDIGARH ) SEARCH AND SEIZURE - BLOCK ASSESSMENT - COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME - DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING SEARCH NOT BEING CLEAR AS TO WHETHER ITEMS WERE PAYMENTS OR RE CEIPTS OR SOME OTHER CALCULATIONS, NO ADDITION COULD BE MA DE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A DUMB DOCUMENTS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A DDITION MADE BY ID.A0 DESERVE TO BE DELETED AS: NOTING ON THE PAGE 10 OF EXHIBIT 4 OF ANNEXURE AS W AS MERELY A ROUGH NOTING; SUCH DOCUMENT WAS NOT IN THE HANDWRITING OF ASSESSE E; SUCH DOCUMENT WAS UNDATED AND NOTING DID NOT BEAR A NY SIGNATURE NOR THE NAME OF PARTIES; - NO REGISTERED DOCUMENT WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AT AMOUNT NOTED IN SUCH ROUGH NOTING; NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER WAS MADE BY ID.A0 TO BRING SUC H ALLEGED REGISTERED DOCUMENT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE ON RECO RD, IF ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY INVESTED ANYTHING OUT OF UNACCOUNTED S OURCES WHEN THE AO HAD VITAL POWERS U/S 133(6) TO EVEN CALL FOR INFORMATION EVEN FROM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE; AND, NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE FROM WHI CH SOURCES ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUCH ALLEGED INVESTMENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY ID. AO SOLELY AS ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS MA Y PLEASE BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 11 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE PARTIES A ND WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT CITED B Y THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THESE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASS ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THESE GROUNDS. THE LD. CIT(A) HA S DEALT WITH THESE GROUNDS IN PARA 5 TO 5.1 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTE D BY THE LD. A/R AND THE ORDER OF AO. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH T HE COPY OF SEIZED DOCUMENT (ANNEXURE AS, EXHIBIT 01 TO 05) ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION. I HAVE PERUSED THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. A/R. 5.2 FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE THE SCANNED POR TION OF DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION IS AS UNDER: ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 12 FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE THE FRONT AND BACK SIDE OF THE PAGE IS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE TO THIS ORDER. 5.3 THE LD. AO HAS ADDED THE FIGURES 12080572 (CASH ) AND 604030 (STAMP) AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SOME PR OPERTY. THE LD. A/R ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSA CTION HAVE ABSOLUTE NO RELATEABILITY WITH THE APPELLANT OR ANY INVESTMENT DONE BY THE APPELLANT. BEFORE THE SCRIBBLING OR TRANSACTION ARE ANALYZED O N THIS PAGE IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO REFER WHAT CONSTITUTE A SEIZ ED DOCUMENT. AMONG MANY JUDGMENT AVAILABLE A COMPREHENSIVE DISCU SSION ON WHAT CONSTITUTE A DUMB DOCUMENT IS DISCUSSED IN DEC ISION OF HON'BLE ITAT JABALPUR DECISION IN ACIT VS. SATYAPAL WASSAN. 5.4 THE TAXABILITY OF TRANSACTION FROM THE DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS DEALT IN DETA IL IN ACIT VS. SATYAPAL WASSAN 295 ITR (AT) 352 THE HON'BLE ITAT J ABALPUR HAS DISCUSSED AS UNDER: ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 13 LET US NOW EXAMINE HOW ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVYING TAX ON THE BASIS OF A SEIZE D DOCUMENT. SECTION 4 RELATES TO CHARGE OF INCOME-TAX. IT READS AS UNDER: SECTION 4(1) WHERE ANY CENTRAL ACT ENACTS THAT INCO ME-TAX SHALL BE CHARGED FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR AT ANY RATE OR R ATES, INCOME- TAX AT THAT RATE OR THOSE RATES SHALL BE CHARGED FO R THAT YEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS (INC LUDING PROVISIONS FOR THE LEVY OF ADDITIONAL INCOME-TAX) O F, THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF EVERY PERSON: PROVIDED THAT WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY PROVISION OF T HIS ACT INCOME- TAX IS TO BE CHARGED IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME OF A PERIOD OTHER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, INCOME-TAX SHALL BE CHARGED ACCORDINGLY. (2) IN RESPECT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER SUB-SECTI ON (1), INCOME- TAX SHALL BE DEDUCTED AT THE SOURCE OR PAID IN ADVANCE, WHERE IT IS SO DEDUCTIBLE OR PAYABLE UNDER ANY PROV ISION OF THIS ACT FROM A READING OF ABOVE SECTION, WE FIND FOLLOW ING COMPONENTS WHICH ENTER INTO THE CONCEPT OF TAXATION . THE FIRST IS THE TAXABLE EVENT WHICH ATTRACTS THE LEVY, THE SECO ND IS THE PERSON ON WHOM THE LEVY IS IMPOSED AND WHO IS OBLIG ED TO PAY THE TAX. THE THIRD IS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH CHARGE OF INCOME-TAX IS LEVIED. THE FOURTH IS THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE FIFTH IS THE RATE OR RATES AT WHICH TAX IS TO BE IMPOSED. THE RATES ARE PRESCRIBED IN THE ANNUAL FINANCE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS COMPONENT HAS NO VALUE IN DETERMINI NG TOTAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT. OUR VIEW IN THIS REGARD IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN GOVIND SARAN GANGA SARAN V. CST WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT F OR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING TO TAX, THERE SHOULD BE FOUR CO MPONENTS TO BE SATISFIED. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE REFER TO THE RELEVANT HEAD NOTES FROM THAT DECISION: THE HON'BLE ITAT JABALPUR HAS GONE TO THE EXTENT OF EXPLAIN WHAT CONSTITUTE A DUMB DOCUMENT. IN THE WORD OF HON'BLE ITAT JAIPUR SAME IS AS UNDER: 'A CHARGE CAN BE LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT ON LY WHEN THE DOCUMENT IS A SPEAKING ONE. THE DOCUMENT SHOULD SPE AK EITHER ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 14 OUT OF ITSELF OR IN THE COMPANY OF OTHER MATERIAL F OUND ON INVESTIGATION AND/OR IN THE SEARCH. THE DOCUMENT SH OULD BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FOUR COMPONEN TS OF THE CHARGE OF TAX. IF IT IS NOT SO, THE DOCUMENT IS ONL Y A DUMB DOCUMENT. NO CHARGE CAN BE LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF A DUMB DOCUMENT. A DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF A SEARCH MUST BE A SPEAKING ONE AND WITHOUT ANY SECOND INTERPRETATION, MUST REFLECT ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESS EE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ANY GAP IN THE VARIOUS CO MPONENTS FOR THE CHARGE OF TAX MUST BE FILLED UP BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THROUGH INVESTIGATIONS AND CORRELATIONS WITH OTHER MATERIAL FOUND EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR ON INVESTIGAT IONS. THE DOCUMENT WAS BEREFT OF NECESSARY DETAILS ABOUT THE YEAR OF TRANSACTION, OWNERSHIP, NATURE OF TRANSACTION, NECE SSARY CODE FOR DECIPHERING THE FIGURES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRES UMED THAT THE TRANSACTION BELONGED TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR. 1988-89 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90, THAT THE FIGURES MENTI ONED IN THE DOCUMENT WERE ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT T HE TRANSACTIONS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, AND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE IN A CODE OF LAKHS AND THAT THE UNIT WAS THE R UPEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY ENQUIRY EIT HER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO FIND OUT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AND THE PERI OD I? - WHICH THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT; HE HAD SIMPLY PRESUMED THAT THE FIGURES WERE ADVANCES WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY M ATERIAL ON RECOI .--.7 D - 7=1175PORT SUCH PRESUMPTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DRAWN INFERENCES, MADE PRESUMPTIONS, RELIED ON SURMISES AND THUS MADE UNSUSTAINABLE ADDITIONS.' 5.5 NOW ON THE DOCUMENT THOUGH SEIZED FROM THE PREM ISES OF APPELLANT THERE IS NO DATE OR EVEN NARRATION LIKE ' RS.' BEFORE THE SCRIBBLING SO EVIDENT. THERE IS NO CORRELATION WITH THESE SCRIBBLING WITH ANY TRANSACTIONS, DISCLOSED OR UNDISCLOSED, WI TH OTHER SEIZED MATERIAL OR REGULAR BOOKS. NOR THERE IS ANY STATEME NT OR INQUIRY TO REINFORCE THE TAXABILITY BASED ON THIS DOCUMENT. ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 15 7. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AFTER HEARING THE COUNSELS AT LENGTH, WE FIND THAT DURING THE SEA RCH PROCEEDINGS AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KED IA, SEVERAL INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THES E DOCUMENTS WERE INVENTORIZED AS ANNEXURE-AS, EXHIBITS 01 TO 05 HOWE VER, AT PAGE 10 OF EXHIBIT 4 OF ANNEXURE-AS, CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WER E FOUND RECORDED AND THE AO NOTICED ON THIS PAGE, 1,20,80,572/- AS C ASH AND 6,04,030/- AS STAMP WERE WRITTEN. THEREFORE, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF CASH PAID AND STAMP DUTY ARE WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE AO, THESE NOTHINGS PERTAIN TO ACTUAL TRANSACTI ON AND ARE NOT MERE ESTIMATIONS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE AN UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT OF RS . 1,20,80,572/- IN CASH FOR MAKING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND ALSO PAID STAMP DUTY OF RS. 6,04,030/- ON THE SAME AND THEREFORE, THE AO MA DE ADDITION BY HOLDING THE SAME AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. CIT(A) TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE SPECIFIC PLE A RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE NOTINGS ARE MERELY ESTIMATION A ND DO NOT RELATED TO ANY ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSES SEE AND THUS HOLDED ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 16 THE SAID PAGE NO. 10 OF EXHIBIT 4 OF ANNEXURE-AS A ND AS DUMB DOCUMENT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE FAC T, DOCUMENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED VIEW THAT A CHARGE CAN BE LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS ONLY , WHEN THE DOCUMENT IS A SPEAKING ONE. THE DOCUMENT SHOULD SPE AK EITHER OUT OF ITSELF OR IN THE COMPANY OF OTHER MATERIAL FOUND ON INVESTMENT AND/OR IN THE SEARCH. THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE CLEAR AND UNAMBI GUOUS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FOUR COMPONENTS OF THE CHARGE OF TAX. IF IT IS NOT SO, THE DOCUMENT CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. THEREFORE, NO CHARGE CAN BE LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF A DUMB DOCUMEN T. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER PERUSAL OF PAGE NO. 10 OF EXHIBIT 4 OF ANNEXURE-AS AND AFTER RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT JABALPUR IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SATYAPAL WASSAN 295 ITR (AT) 352 HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE DOCUMENTS THOUGH SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DATE OR EVEN NARRATION LIKE RS BEFORE THE SCRIBBLING SO EVIDENT. AND THE RE IS NO CORRELATION WITH THESE SCRIBBLING WITH ANY TRANSACTIONS, DISCLOSED O R UNDISCLOSED, WITH OTHER SEIZED MATERIAL OR REGULAR BOOKS. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT NOR THERE IS ANY STATEMENT OR INQUIRY TO REINFORCE THE TAXABILITY BASED ON THIS DOCUMENT. ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 17 9. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS BE REFT OF NECESSARY DETAILS ABOUT THE YEAR OF TRANSITION, NATURE OF TRA NSACTION AND EVEN DID NOT CARRY ANY SIGNATURES. THERE IS NO DATE OR EVEN NARRATION LIKE RS. BEFORE THE SCRIBBLING. THE AO HAD MERELY PRESUMED T HAT THE ASSESSEE MADE UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT OF RS. 1,20,80,572/- IN CA SH FOR MAKING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND ALSO PAID STAMP DUTY OF RS. 6,04,030/- ON THE SAME. THE AO DID NOT CARRIED OUT ANY INQUIRY EI THER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO FIND OUT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AND THE PERIOD IN WH ICH THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT OR TO LOCATE AND BEIN G ON RECORD THE WHERE ABOUTS OF THE LAND ALLEGED AS PURCHASE. NO SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO SUB-REGISTRAR TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER ANY SUCH DO CUMENT REFERRED TO IN THE PAPER WAS READLY EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF ASSE SSEE OR NOT, HE HAD SIMPLY PRESUMED THAT THE FIGURES WERE UNACCOUNTED I NVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, W ITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT SUCH PRESUMPTION. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ENTRIES ON THE PAGE 10 OF EXHIBIT 4 OF ANNEXURE AS ARE MERELY ROUGH SCRIBBLING. SUCH SCRIB BLING WERE NOT IN THE HANDWRITING OF ASSESSEE. SUCH DOCUMENT WAS UNDA TED AND NOTING DID NOT BEAR ANY SIGNATURE AND THE NAME APPEARING T HEREIN ARE NOT OF ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 18 ASSESSEE. NO REGISTERED DOCUMENT WHATSOEVER WAS FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WITH AMOUNT FOR WHICH ADDITION IS MADE. NO EFFORTS WHATS OEVER WERE MADE BY THE AO TO BRING ON RECORD SUCH ALLEGED REGISTERE D DOCUMENT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE AO HAD VAST POWERS U/S 133(6) TO EVEN CALL FOR INFORMATION FROM SUB-REGIST RAR OFFICE. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE FROM WHICH SOURCES ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUCH ALLEGED INVESTMENT AND WHILE REACHING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION WE ALSO STRENGTH FROM THE DECISION AND R ELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE:- 1. 211 ITR 178 CIT VS. R.Y. DURLABHJI (RAJ) 2. 25 TAX WORLD 87 CIT VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA ( RAJ . HIGH COURT) 3. 72 ITR 342 D.A. PATEL VS. DCIT ( MUM) 4. 72 TAXMANN.COM 355 DCIT VS. NARENDRA GARG & ASHOK GARG (GUJARAT) 5. CIT VS. A. AND A BAKERY P. LTD. [2008] 302 ITR 51 ( DELHI) 6. 361 ITR 220 CIT VS. KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. & ORS. (DEL) 7. CBI VS. V.C. SHUKLA & OTHERS( SC) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DRAWN INFERENCES, MADE PR ESUMPTION, RELIED ON SURMISES AND THUS MADE UNSUSTAINABLE ADDITIONS. THEREFORE IN OUR ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 19 VIEW THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ALSO AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS I.E. PAGE 10 OF EXH IBIT- 4 OF ANNEXURE- AS HAS NO RELATIBILITY WITH ANY ASSETS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE BA SED ON SCRIBBLING ON THE IMPUGNED DOCUMENT THUS, RIGHTLY CONSIDERED T HE SAID DOCUMENT AS DUMB DOCUMENT. NO NEW FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES H AVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US IN ORDER CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE NO REASON TO INTERFERE INTO WELL REASONS AN D JUDICIOUS FINDING SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME IS DISMISSED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/11/2020. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO LANHI XKSLKBZ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 11/11/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KEDIA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, 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. ITA NO. 909/JP/2019 DCIT VS. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KADIA 20 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 909/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR