The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ahmedabad V. Shri Dipakkumar A.Thakkar, Ahmedabad

ITA 925/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0560 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 69; 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 925 / AHD/20 1 1 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 925 / AHD /201 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 5 - 06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. SHRI DIPAKKUMA R A THAKKAR, C ENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), AHMEDABAD. 17, DEV APARTMENTS, B/H. HAREKRISHNA COMPLEX, PRITAM NAGAR, AHMEDABAD. [PAN A BXPT 2568 E ] (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : S HRI ANIL KUMAR, C.I.T. (D.R.) RE S PONDENT BY : S HRI S.N. SOPARKAR, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 .0 6 . 20 16 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08. 0 9 .2016 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA , J.M. TH IS REVENUE S APPEAL FOR A SSESSMENT Y EAR 2005 - 06 , ARISE S FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - I , AHMED ABAD DATED 24.01.2011, PASSED IN CASE NO.CIT(A) - I/CC.1/327/2009 - 10 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE REVENUE RAISES FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL : - (1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING THE FRESH EVIDENCES IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULE WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.16,00,000/ - MAD E U/S 68 OF THE ACT. (2) THE L D . CIT ( A ) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO VERIFY THE FRESH EVIDENCES AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF C I T(A). (3) ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT ( A ) OUGHT NOT HAVE ADMITTED T HE FRESH EVIDENCES AND OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ITA NO . 925 / AHD/20 1 1 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 PAGE 2 OF 9 (4) THE LD . CIT ( A ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,01,693/ - , RS.1,75, 428/ - AND RS.2,56,774/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT OF THREE CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE A T 8% AFTER REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS. (5) ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD . CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.1,01,693/ - , RS.1,75,428/ - AND RS.2,56,774/ - IN VIEW OF THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. (6) THE LD . CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.55,87, 450/ - MADE U/S. 69B OF THE ACT ON THE B A SIS OF PAPERS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. (7) ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT ( A ) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.55,87,450/ - MADE U/S. 69B OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED PAPERS. (8) IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) BE SET A SIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. (9) ON THE F A CT S A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A ) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 3. THIS ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL IS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. HE WAS PROPRIETOR OF MANY CONSTRUCTION FIRM S IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE DEPARTMENT CO NDUCTED A SE ARCH AT ITS BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES ALONG WITH T HAT IN CASE OF M /S . DHARAM DEV BUILDERS GROUP OF CASES ON 0 9. 0 2.2005. I T FOUND CASH OF RS.71,565/ - , JEWELLERY OF RS.2,69,800/ - OUT O F WHICH A SUM OF RS.50,000 STOOD SEIZED. 4. THE ASS ESSEE FILED HIS RETURN ON 31. 05 .2006 S T ATING INCOME OF RS.25,20,410/ - . THE A SSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED A REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON 29.12.2006 INTER ALIA MAKING THE ABOVE STAT E D THREE ADDITIONS AS PLEADED IN REVENUE S GROUNDS. THE CIT(A) DELETE ALL OF THEM LEAVING THE R EVE NUE AGGRIEVED AS PER ITS SUBST ANTIVE GROUNDS EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE. 5. WE COME TO FIRST ISSUE OF SECTION 68 UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ADDITION IN THE NAMES OF SAROJ ASHOK THAKKAR AND HETAL BHARAT THAKKAR . THE A SSESSING OFFICER NOTED ASSE SSEE S FAILURE IN PR OVING IDENTITY, GENUINEN ESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE CREDITS ITA NO . 925 / AHD/20 1 1 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 PAGE 3 OF 9 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT TO INVOKE S ECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE PLACED O N RECO R D HIS TWO CREDITORS IDENTI T IES, CONFIRMATIONS AND ACCOUNTS DURING TH E COURSE OF LO WER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. T HE CI T(A) DIRECT ED THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME AS UNDER : - 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM TWO PERSONS NAMELY SAROJ THAKKAR AND HETAL THAKKAR, RS.8 LAKH FROM EACH OF THEM BY CHEQUE DRAWN ON THEIR ACCOUNT WITH MAHILA VIKAS CO - OP. BANK. BOTH DEPOSITORS ARE BEING ASSESSED TO TAX AND THEY HAVE GIVEN P. A. NO. A ND THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT. THE EVIDENCES SO PRODUCED ARE ADMITTED HAVING REGARD TO THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE FACT TH A T THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A . O . , THE A . O . IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THESE EVIDENCES AND PASS THE APPROPRIATE ORDER, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE INSTANT APPELLA TE ORDER. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE ONE COPY OF THESE EVIDENCES BEFORE ASSESSING OFFIC E R. THIS GROUND IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 6. L EARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING AT REVENUE S BEHEST STRO N GLY ARGU E S THAT THE CIT ( A ) HAS V IOLATED RULE 46A OF T HE I NCOME TAX RULES. H IS CA S E IS THAT THE LOWER APP ELLATE AUTHORIT IES D ID NOT SPECIFY TH E RELEVANT LIMB OF THE ABOVE STATED RULES AS WELL BEFORE ADMITTING ASS ESSEE S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE SAME IS FURTHER ASSAILED BEING VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE SINCE T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITY W A S NEVER C ONFRONTED WITH TH E ABOVE STA T ED ADDITIONAL MA T ERIAL. SHRI ANIL K UMAR , LEARNED C . I . T . (D.R.) THEREAFTER REFERRED TO SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT AS AMENDED BY T HE FIN ANCE ACT 2001 W.E.F . 01.0 6.2001 OMITTING TH E CRUCIAL EXPRESSION SETTING ASIDE AS EXISTING EARLIER TO STATE THAT THE CIT ( A ) HAS ERRED IN RESTORING THE ISSUE B A CK TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER. HE ACCORDINGLY SEEKS TO REVIVE THE I MPUGNED SECTION 68 ADDITION IN QUESTION. 7. WE COME TO ASS ESSEE S SUBMISS IONS NOW. HIS CASE IS THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED STATUTORY PROVISIONS DOES NOT BAR T HE CIT ( A ) FROM REM ANDING THE CASE. H IS ALTERNATIVE SUBMISS ION IS THAT THIS T RIBUNAL CAN ALWAYS RESTORE ANY ISSUE IN EXERCISING ITS JURISDICTION. ITA NO . 925 / AHD/20 1 1 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 PAGE 4 OF 9 LEARNED COUNSEL THEREFORE PLACES ON RECORD TRIBUNAL S ORDER IN ASSES S EE S OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 0 4 REMITTING IDENTICAL SECTION 68 ISSUE BACK TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. SHRI ANIL KUMAR, LEARNED C.I.T. (D.R.) REPRESENTING REVENUE STRONGLY REITERATES HIS EARLIER SUBMI SSIONS IN REBUTTAL . 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL ARGUMENTS. RELEVANT FINDINGS STAND PERUSED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE T HAT THIS ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFY ALL THE THREE LIMBS OF IDENTITY, GENUINE NE SS AND CREDITWORTHINESS SO AS TO EXPLAIN THE IMPUGNED CASH CREDIT OF RS.16,00,000 / - IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE CHOSE TO FILE ALL THESE DETAILS BEFOR E THE CI T(A) . THE SAME STAND ACCEPTED W ITH THE DI RECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONFIRM VER A CITY THEREOF. WE FIND THAT SECTION 251(1)(A) DOES NOT LEAVE SUCH A COUR SE OPEN TO THE CIT ( A ) W.E.F. 0 1. 0 6.2001 ANYMORE. THE LEGISLAT URE HAS MADE CLEAR ITS MANDATE BY IN TRO DUCING NECESSARY OMISSION IN THE FINANCE ACT 2001. WE FI N D FORCE IN T HE REVENUE S LEGAL ARGUMENT IN PRINCIPLE CHALLENGING THE C IT (A) S ORDER REMANDING TH E ISSUE BACK T O THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 10. WE COME TO RULE 46A VIOLATION ISSUE NOW. THER E IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE CI T(A) HAS NOT CONFRONTED TH E A SSESSING OFFICER WITH THE ASS ESSEE S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE FACT ALSO REMAINS THAT HE HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE I T SELF TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. W E NOTICE FROM TH E CASE FILE THAT THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD FRAMED ASSESSMENTS I N HIS CASE ALONG WITH SIX OTHER GROUP CONCERNS WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF THREE TO FOUR MONTHS. THIS DID NOT LEAVE HIM SUFFICIENT TIME TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN QUESTION . THE AS SESSEE S CASE W A S THAT HIS ADDITION AL EVIDENCE CAME UNDER RULE 46A (1)(D) OF THE I . T . RULES. T HE R EVENUE FAILS TO POINT OUT THIS FACTUAL POSITION IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFOR E US. WE FURTHER REVERT BACK TO SECTION 251(1)(A) ASPECT. ITA NO . 925 / AHD/20 1 1 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 PAGE 5 OF 9 WE REITE RA TE T HAT TH E C IT ( A ) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THEREBY LEAVING THE A SSESSING OFFICER T O CONDUCT NECES SA RY VERIFICATION. WE CONCLUDE IN THESE PEC ULIAR FACT THAT CIT ( A ) S DIRECTI ONS , THOUGH VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT SHALL NOW FORM PART OF OUR FOLLOWING THE SAME COURSE OF ACTION IN EXERCI S E OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF TH E A CT. THE A SSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE - ADJUDICATE TH E ISSUE ON MERI T S AS PER LAW AFTER GO I NG THROUGH THE ENTIRE RELEVANT DETAILS. T H IS R EVENUE S GROUND IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS E S. 11. WE COME TO THE SECOND ISSUE OF ESTIMATED NET PROFITS @ 8% OF THE ASS ESSEE S THREE CONCERNS AS PLEADED HEREINABOVE I.E. M/S. S A THYA BUILDERS, KUNJ B UILDERS AND EARTH B UILDERS. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSEE S OWN CASE ITA NO .2141/AHD/2009 DECIDED ON 19. 04 .2013 PERTAINING TO IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS ALREADY DECIDED T H E VERY ISSUE AGAINST THE R EVENUE. THERE IS NO DISTIN CTION ON FACTS OR LAW BEING POINT E D OUT IN TH E COURSE OF HEARING. WE REJECT THE REVENUE S SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND ACCORDINGLY. 12. WE COME TO THIRD ISSUE OF SECTION 69B ADDITION OF RS.55,87,450/ - MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND DELET E D IN THE LOWER APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS. T H E SAME EMANATES FROM PAGE NO. 37 OF A NNEXURE A - 12. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE FOR BETTER CLARITY OF THE ISSUE TO REPRODUCE ASSESSMENT FINDING AS UNDER: - 10.3. ON PERUSAL O F PAGE NO.37, FOLLOWING TRANSACTIONS ARE FOUND NOTED : - 1230.6 1000 2068.5 43,87,450 42,37,450 1,50 12,00,000 ITA NO . 925 / AHD/20 1 1 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 PAGE 6 OF 9 10.4. ON CLOSE ANALYSIS OF THE NOTINGS MENTIONED ON THIS PAGE, IT IS NOTICED THAT FIRST THREE FIGURES NOTED ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN SHORT FORM, HOWEVER, THE TOTAL OF THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE IN FULL FORM WHICH IS RS.42,37,450/ - . THIS IS ALMOST THE TOTAL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED 3 FIGURES. AGAIN, AGAINST THIS TOTAL, AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/ - HAD BEEN WRITTEN IN SHORT FORM AS '1,50'. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT ON THE TOP OF TH E FIGURE WHERE 1, 50 IS NOTED, AN AMOUNT OF RS.43,87,450 IN FULL FORM IS WRITTEN. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL OF 4 TRANSACTIONS IS RS.43,87,450/ - . FURTHER, BELOW THE FIGURE OF RS.42,37,450/ - , ONE MORE AMOUNT OF RS.12 LAKHS HAS BEEN WRITTEN. THUS THE TOTAL OF THE T RANSACTIONS RECORDED ON THIS PAGE WORKS OUT TO RS.55 , 87 , 450/ - . THE ANALYSIS OF THE PAPER ALSO REVEALS THAT AGAINST FIRST TWO ENTRIES, SIGNATURES OF THE RECIPIENTS ARE ALSO RECORDED. FROM PERUSAL OF THIS PAPER IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCE S TO CERTAIN PARTIES AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN NOTED ON THIS PAGE. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH NOTINGS. THE LOOSE PAPER IS JUST A DUMP PIECE OF MATERIAL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTINGS MIGHT PERTAIN TO SOME QUOTATION OF LAND OR SOME ESTIMATE AND NO SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAVE EVER TAKEN PLACE. 10.5. THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IS NOT CONVINCING. THE PAPER WAS FOUND FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE PRIMARY ONUS WAS CAST UPON HIM TO EXPLA IN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AS WELL AS THE SOURCES OF ADVANCES/PAYMENTS AND THEIR ACCOUNTING TREATMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST UPON HIM. IN ABSENCE OF ANY CLARIFICATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADVANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.55,87,450 / - TO DIFFERENT PARTIES OUT OF HIS U NDISCLOSED INCOME, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RETURN OF INCOME FILED. THE SAME IS, T HEREFORE, TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE FORM OF ADVANCES MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 - B OF THE IT ACT AND THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE I . T . ACT ARE INITIATED AS TH E ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THEREBY CONCEALING THE INCOME . (ADDITION RS.3,02,338 + 55,87,450 = RS.58,89,788/ - ) . 13. THE C IT ( A ) REVERSES THE SAME AS UNDER : - 8.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO LOOSE PAPER BEING PAGE NO.37 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. IT APPEARS THAT THE A.O. HAS PRESUMED THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENT ADVANCES TO DIFFERENT PERSONS STATED IN THE LOOSE PAPER. HE HAS PRESUMED THAT THE 4 TH FIGURE IS TOTAL OF FIRST 3 FIGURES. HOWEVER THIS PRESUMPTION IS NOT CORRECT. THAT APART ALL THE FIGURES DO NOT MENTION ACTUAL TRANSACTION HAVING TAKEN PLACE NOR ANY DATE. EVEN IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER IT IS PAYMENT OR RECEIPT. IT REPRESENTS ONLY ROUGH NOTINGS. IN THE CIRC UMSTANCES, THE PRESUMPTION THAT IT REPRESENTS LOAN ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT. THE ADDITION IS MADE ON PRESUMPTION BASIS AND IT CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. THE ADDITION OF RS.55,87,450/ - IS DELETED. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT TENDERED ANY EXPLANATION AS REGARDS TO BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.3,02,338/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. ITA NO . 925 / AHD/20 1 1 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 PAGE 7 OF 9 14. SHRI A NIL K UMAR , LEARNED C.I.T. (D.R.) REPRESE NTING R EVENUE P LACES ON R E CORD PAGE NO. 37 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ANNE X URE A - 1. HE STRONGLY ARGUES THAT THE SAME CONTAINS RELEVANT FIGURES AND IT DO ES NOT FORM A DUMB DOCUMENT. H E STRENGTHENS HIS ARGUMENTS BY SUBMITTING THAT ITS DOCUMEN T S SEIZED DURING SEARCH CARRYING PRESUMPTION IN ITS FAVOUR AND ONLY THE ASSESSEE IS IN EX CLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE SINCE THE ONUS FALLS ON HIM UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY SEEKS TO REVIVE A SSESSING OFFICER S ACTION MAKING SECTION 69B ADDITION OF RS.55,8 7 ,450/ - . 15. L EARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE LOWER APP ELLATE FINDING S . H IS CASE IS THAT PAGE NO. 37 IN QUESTION IS A MERE PIECE OF PAPER IN THE NATURE OF A DUM B DOCUMENT. T H E CRUCIAL WORD RS . NOWHERE IS MENTION E D THEREIN. RELEVANT TOTAL OF THE FIGURES DOES NOT TALLY. T HERE IS ALSO STATED TO BE NO EVIDENCE WHETH ER THESE SUMS WERE PAID OR RECEIVED. L EARNED COUNSEL CONTENDS T HAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT RECORD ANY FINDING QUA ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. H E DR A WS PARALLEL IN ALL CONTEMPORARY SECTIONS FROM SEC T ION 6 8 6 9 C INVOLVING THE CRU CIAL EXPRESSION FORM . HE CLARIFIES THAT THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR IS NO T FORTHCOMING QUA THESE FIGURES . H E PLEA D S IN TH E END THAT IT IS THE REVENUE S BURDEN TO SATISFY ALL TH E RELEVANT INGREDIENT S OF SECTION 69B ADDITION AND TH E N ONLY TH E ASSESSEE H AS TO DI SCHARGE THE ONUS SHIFTED FROM T H E R EVENUE. CASE LAW OF ( 2007 ) 293 ITR 43 CIT VS. S . M . AGARWAL IS ALSO QUOTED IN SUPPORT . 16. THE R EV E NUE S T RONGLY REITERATES ITS ARGUMENTS RENDERED EARLIER ON BEING GRANTED REBUTTAL OPPORTUNITY. 17. WE HAVE HEA R D BOTH THE SIDES. RELEVANT FINDINGS AND CONTENTS OF THE PAPER BOOK STAND PERUSED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT RECOVERY OF PAGE NO. 37 OF THE SEIZED ITA NO . 925 / AHD/20 1 1 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 PAGE 8 OF 9 DOCUMENTS (SUPRA) FROM ASS ESSEE S PREMIS E S IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE HAVE EXTRACTED BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE . I T IS NOTICED THAT SUM TOTAL OF FIRST THREE FIGURES COMES TO 4299.1 AS AGAINST THAT SHOWN OF 42,37,450. THE A SSESSING OFFICER FORMS HIS VIEW FROM THE TWO NAMES OF THE CORRESPONDING FIGURES OF 1236.6/AND 1000 TO TREAT THEM AS SIGNATORIES OF THE CONCERNED RECEIPTS. HE THEREAFTER ADOPTS THESE FIGURES IN THOUSANDS BY ASSUMING THAT SUM TO T AL THEREOF IS ALMOST CORRECT. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS AGGREGATE OF THE FIRST THREE FIGURES IS BASED ON MERE ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS. S O I S HIS VIEW IN TREATING THE FIRST TWO NAMES AS RECIPIENTS OF TH E CORRESPONDING AMOUNTS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD IN ITS SUPPORT. HON BLE DELHI HIGH C OURT (SUPRA) DEALT WITH TH E SIMILAR CASE WHEREIN THE DEP ARTMENT CAME ACROSS CER TAIN DOCUMENTS INCLUDING SOME LETTERS/NAMES AND CORRESPONDING FIGURES THEREIN. THEIR LORDSHIPS CONCLUDE THAT NO UNDISCLOSED INC O ME ADDITION ARISES THEREFROM MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE STATED INFORMATION , S INCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ARE DUMB IN NATU RE BEING WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE ON R E CORD SO AS TO SHIFT ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE. WE OBSERVE IN TH ESE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKDROP THAT THE SAME RATIO APPLIES TO THE INSTANT ISSUE AS WELL. THE REVENUE BAS E ITS CASE MERELY ON SOME FIGURES WHOSE AGGREG ATE IS TREATED AS ALMOST ACCURATE. WE ACCORDINGLY AFFIRM CIT (A) S FINDING AS EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE. THIS REVENUE S GROUND FAILS . 18. IN THE RESULT, T HIS REVENUE S A PPEAL PARTLY SUCCE E DS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 8 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - MANISH BORAD S.S. GODARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 8 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2016 PBN/* ITA NO . 925 / AHD/20 1 1 A.Y. 200 5 - 06 PAGE 9 OF 9 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD