ACIT, Central Circle-8, V. Goldy Medicos India Pvt. Ltd.,

ITSSA 184/DEL/2005

AI Insights

The case involves cross appeals by Goldy Medicos (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi, against the order of the CIT(A)-II, New Delhi, concerning the block assessment period from April 1, 1995, to March 21, 2002. The appeals primarily dealt with additions made by the AO on the basis of entries found in seized documents, which were alleged to represent unexplained investments and expenditures by the assessee. The Tribunal examined the validity of these additions under sections 69B and 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and considered the evidentiary value of the seized documents and the explanations provided by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115696 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-04-2005
• Other Referred Cases: Virender Bhatia V. Dy.CIT, Ashwani Kumar vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Block assessment; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 69; 132; 69C; 69B; 158B(b); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 Block Assessment Period: 01.04.1995 to 21.03.2002 Goldy Medicos (India) Pvt. Ltd., 15/114, Geeta Colony, Delhi – 110 031. PAN: AAACG4426F Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi. IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 Block Assessment Period: 01.04.1995 to 21.03.2002 ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi. Vs. Goldy Medicos (India) Pvt. Ltd., 15/114, Geeta Colony, Delhi – 110 031. PAN: AAACG4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.03.2023 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 31.01.2005 of the CIT(A)-II, New Delhi, relating to Block Assessment Period 01.04.1995 to 21.03.2002. IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 2 IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 (By the assessee) 2. The grounds of appeal No. 5 and 6 are general in nature which requires no adjudication. The remaining four effective grounds read as under:- “1. That the Ld CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs.1,54,920/- on the basis of entries on a loose paper. 2. That the Ld CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 35,600/- on the basis of a slip of M/s Chawla Jewellers which is an estimate given by the jeweller. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has eared on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 4,96,795/- on the basis of entries made on page nos. 1 to 7 of annexure A3 regarding the documents seized during the course of search. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) has eared on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 3,86,904/- as investment in unaccounted stock.” Ground of appeal No.1: 3. Apropos ground No.1, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.1,54,920/- on the basis of entries on a loose paper. Therefore, when the AO has not even admitted to have established that how the entries on this paper have remote connection with the business of the assessee, then, no addition is called for. The ld. Counsel submitted that even the stock of the company has been inventorised and no specific discrepancy was found. Therefore, the impugned addition on account of unexplained investment may kindly be deleted. 4. The ld. CIT-DR supported the action and orders of the authorities below. 5. On careful consideration of the above submissions, we are of the view that it is not disputed by the assessee/appellant that entries relating to M/s Shivangi Chit Fund IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 3 have not been made by Shri Kishan Chand Tuteja. The paper on the basis of which the additions have been made stands on a different footing and the assessee cannot blow hot and cold at the same time to make believe the stand of the assessee that part of the entries belong to him and the remaining do not. The seized document has to be considered in toto and not in part and when the totality of the documents seized is considered and the assessee has owned up the document, then, the burden obviously is cast on him to explain the other contents of the seized documents. The ld.CIT(A) rightly held that the assessee has failed to explain the other contents of the seized paper which clearly reveals the amount of Rs.1,54,920/- as unexplained investment. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the findings arrived at by the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly, ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed. Ground of appeal No.2 : 6. Apropos ground No.2 of the assessee, the ld. Counsel submitted that the AO has not even admitted to have established how the entries on this paper would have any remote connection with the business of the assessee which was treated as unexplained investment specifically when the AO has not brought any factual position on record as to where the investment has been made. Therefore, the addition may kindly be deleted. 7. The ld.CIT-DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the AO has rightly made the addition on the basis of the loose paper seized during the search operation on the assessee group. Therefore, the addition is sustainable. IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 4 8. On careful consideration of the above submissions, we are of the considered view that the loose paper is nothing, but, letterhead of M/s Chawla Jewellers and name of the assessee company has been mentioned therein. The assessee company failed to establish by way of leading plausible evidence to establish that no transaction has been taken place with M/s Chawla Jewellers, but, despite proper opportunity, the assessee failed to discharge the said required onus. Therefore, the action of the AO was justified and the ld.CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the assessee is also dismissed. Ground No.3 of the assessee: 9. Apropos ground No.3, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the addition has been made on the basis of the contents on pages 1 to 7 of Annexure A-3 which was seized during the course of search and seizure operation. The ld. Counsel further explained that a statement on oath of Shri Kishan Chand Tuteja was recorded at the time of search wherein it was stated that the paper is not in his handwriting and he is not in a position to explain the contents of the paper book. The ld. Counsel further submitted that subsequently, statement of Shri Kishan Chand Tuteja was again recorded during assessment proceedings and the same answer was reiterated. The ld. Counsel vehemently pointed out that the AO has arbitrarily rejected the explanation of the assessee and has made addition by wrongly holding that the amount of Rs.4,96,795/- represents the undisclosed investment of the assessee whereas a bare perusal of the document would clearly reveal that it does not reflect any investment which could have been made by the assessee. The ld. Counsel, therefore, submitted that the addition made by the AO may kindly be deleted. IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 5 10. The ld. CIT-DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the AO has rightly made the addition u/s 69B of the Act in account of unexplained investment as the seized document clearly reveal the datewise details of payments made by the assessee on account of various chit funds. 11. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions, we are of the considered view that the AO made addition on the basis of document which was clearly showing the datewise details of payment made on account of various chit funds by the assessee. The AO also noted that the amounts are different in every month as it happens in the case of chit fund payments. In our humble understanding, when the document is found and seized during search operation u/s 132 of the Act under the provisions of the Act, which clearly reveals the datewise details of payments made by the assessee on account of various chit funds, then, the same document cannot be treated as dumb merely because the assessee denied to have written such a document. When the assessee is denying any connection with the document, then, he is duty bound to explain as to whom such document belongs to which have been found and seized from his possession during the search and seizure operation. Mere denial of any link with the document in the statement does not absolve the assessee from the liability of proving that he has not made any investments as noted in the seized document. In the present case, the assessee has miserably failed to discharge the onus lay on his shoulders that either the document is dumb or the document does not carry any details of investments by him and such document belong to some other person. In absence of such contention, it has to be presumed that the document found and seized during the search operation on the assessee belongs to the assessee and the monthwise details of payments to chit fund clearly reveals that the assessee IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 6 has made unexplained investment from the income earned from undisclosed sources. Therefore, the AO was right in making addition in the hands of the assessee u/s 69B of the Act treating the same as unexplained investment. Accordingly, ground No.3 of the assessee is dismissed. Ground No.4 of the assessee: 12. Apropos ground No.4, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that during the course of search, the inventory of stock was prepared and value of the stock was determined t Rs.66,34,903/- whereas the trading account upto the date of search the value of closing stock was Rs.62,47,999/- leaving a shortfall of actual stock to the tune of Rs.3,86,904/- and the AO treated the said amount as purchase of medicines out of undisclosed sources leading to addition u/s 69B of the Act. The ld. Counsel submitted that the valuation of stock as per GP rate was found to be less than the stock found during the course of search. The addition u/s 69B of the Act is not sustainable where there is no evidence of undisclosed investment in the stock of the assessee and more so, where the AO has applied the gross profit rate on the sale of two varying periods and found that the valuation of stock on the date of search as per books as less than the stock as per the inventory. The ld. Counsel submitted that the addition made by the AO and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) do not have legs to stand on the sound footing of tax jurisprudence. Therefore, the same may kindly be deleted. 13. Replying to the above, the ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the excess stock found on the date of search represents undisclosed investments by the assessee. Therefore, the addition may kindly be upheld. IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 7 14. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions, we are of the view that the stock position on the date of search was worked out by applying earlier GP rate and this action of the AO is quite reasonable especially when no stock register was maintained by the assessee. Thus, the AO, by applying the said method found that there was excess stock as on the date of search in comparison to the stock shown in the trading account on the date of search which clearly represents undisclosed investment of the assessee in purchase of such excess stock. Therefore, in our humble understanding, the orders of the authorities below are quite reasonable and justified which does not require any interference. Accordingly, ground No.4 of the assessee is also dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. IT(SS)A No. 184/Del/2005 (By the Revenue) 16. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.74,85,620/- made on account of undisclosed investments as per Page No.2 of Annexure A-l ignoring the provisions of section 132(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 2. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.30,50,000/- and Rs.66,73,636/- made on account of undisclosed investments as per Page 11 to 13 & 15 of Annexure A-l by treating them, as dumb documents ignoring the provisions of section 132(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 3 “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,95,000/- made on account of undisclosed investments.” Ground No.1 of the Revenue: 17. Apropos ground No.1, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.74,85,620 made on account of undisclosed investment as IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 8 per page 2 of Annexure A-1 ignoring the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). The ld.CIT-DR, drawing our attention to relevant part of the orders of the authorities below submitted that the AO rightly made addition u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment by the assessee on the basis of document found and seized during the course of search and seizure operation on the assessee. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without any basis, therefore, the impugned first appellate order may kindly be set aside and the order of the AO may be restored. 18. Replying to the above, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the AO made addition merely on the basis of jottings in the diaries without bring any corroborative evidence to show that these jottings/entries actually established some transactions of unexplained investments by the assessee and the assessee has earned income out of such investment which was not disclosed to the department. The ld. Counsel submitted that the ld.CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition by considering and rightly appreciating the facts and circumstances and documentary evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the first appellate order may kindly be upheld. 19. On careful consideration of the above submissions, first of all, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with the following observations and findings:- “6(iii). I have gone through the assessment order and the submissions made by the Ld. AR. I have also seen the documents on the basis of which impugned additions have been made. The AO has made the addition u/s 69B of the Act i.e. unexplained investment. I agree with the Ld. AR that the A.O. has not given any details as to where the investment has been made. Also, the fact remains that during the course of search itself, Sh. Kishan Chand Tuteja one of the directors of the appellate IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 9 company, had stated that the paper is not in his handwriting and he is not in a position to explain the contents thereof. The same was reiterated by him during the course of assessment proceedings. The A.O, has failed to bring any material on record to indicate that the appellate company had actually made this investment. Even no corroborative or circumstantial evidence points in that direction. It is a dumb document and no addition can be made on the basis of figures written on it without corroborating the same. It is clear from the provisions of section 158BA of the Act that within the pale of chapter-XIV B assessment could be made only in respect of undisclosed income. Such undisclosed income must come as a result of search. During the course of search such direct evidence must come to the knowledge of the Department which indicate clearly the factum of undisclosed income, without such evidence or material the AO is not empowered to draw any presumption as to the existence of undisclosed income. The issue relating to evidentiary value of jottings on loose papers and the seized diary come up for consideration before Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Virender Bhatia V. Dy.CIT ITA No. 5722 to 5725/Del/1996 vide its order dated 5.5.2000 (reported at (2002) 74 TTJ(Del) 60-Ed) the Bench made the following observations : “The jotttings in the seized diary must be considered in the light of the provisions of section 158B(b) and 158BB. There is no scope for making addition on estimate on conjecture and surmises in block assessment. There must be material/evidence in possession of the A.O. to support the additions. The jottings in the seized diary must be interpreted in logical and realistic manner, after due consideration of the books of account, agreement/deeds and any other evidence and after examining the concerned parties and confronting the assessee to their statements and report of the Income-tax Inspector, etc. It would be wrong to make interpretation of the jottings in the seized diary in complete isolation of other material evidence etc. such interpretation in isolation may not stand the test of appeal. In the interest of justice and fairplay and in order to arrive at the fair and just conclusions, both the parties must play their role and discharge their respective duties, responsibly and adequately. The assessee must co-operate with the A.O. to explain the jottings in the seized diary and furnish supporting evidence to meet fair and just conclusion.” Once the assessee has given certain explanation with regard to jottings in the diary, it was for the A.O. to show that the apparent state of affairs was not real. There is no direct nexus between conclusion of facts arrived at by the A.O. and the primary facts upon which his conclusion is based. The AO has not brought any material on record which might provide an acceptable narration to the various entries in the seized diaries. This view gets support from the judgment of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Ashwani Kumar vs. ITO 42 TTJ (Delhi) 644 wherein it was held as under: IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 10 “Moreover the slip did not contain any narration in respect of the various figures noted therein. Further, for presuming that the contents of the books of account or documents are true, the documents must be speaking one. In this case the slip, said to have been recovered by the revenue, did not indicate whether the figures referred to quantities of money or to quantities of goods and whether one side, and if so, which side represented receipt and which side represented outgoings. This was, thus a dumb document and as the orders of the authorities below showed that they had merely added the total of the right side of the slip without supplying the figures any language to indicate their meaning. In the case of such a dumb document, the provisions of section 13 2(4A) do not permit any one to presume that the total of the figures of right side of the slip represents the assessee’s income. The presumption at the most was attracted to the figures and a further presumption that they represented the income of the assessee was; not permissible u/s 132(4A). When a dumb document, like the present slip, was recovered and the revenue wanted to make use of it, it was the duty of the revenue to collect necessary evidence which might provide an acceptable narration to the various entries. The evidence collected should be such that any reasonable man would accept the hypothesis advanced by the revenue that the figures written on the right side of the slip represented incomes earned by the assessee. No such evidence was produced by the Revenue, and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the addition in question”. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that addition made merely on the basis of jottings in the diaries is not justified as the AO has to bring some corroborative evidence to show that these jotting/entries actually show some transaction and that the assessee has earned income out of it which is not disclosed to the department. The AO can tax only those receipts which must have been proved to be income in the hands of the recipient. The AO has not brought any evidence direct or corroborative on record to justify the additions made by him. In these circumstances, I have no option but to delete the addition of Rs.74,85,620/- made by the AO.” 20. In view of the above, on careful consideration of findings and observations recorded by the AO as well as ld.CIT(A) we observe that a document, i.e., page No.2 of Annexure A-1 was used by the AO for making addition in the hands of the assessee on account of undisclosed investments. Undisputedly, the document which was a slip was recovered during the course of search and seizure operation and when the AO was intending to use the same for imposing tax liability on the shoulders of the IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 11 assessee on the allegation of unexplained investment, then, it was the duty of the AO to collect and bring on record positive adverse material against the assessee to prove that the assessee has made undisclosed investments out of his undisclosed income, but, such exercise has not been undertaken by the AO in the present case after invoking the provisions of section 69B of the Act. In our humble understanding, the evidence found and seized during the search operation should reveal clear fact which is acceptable by a man of ordinary prudent. In the present case, the basis/hypothesis taken by the AO is that the figures written on the right side of the slip represents income earned by the assessee, but, no evidence was collected to establish that the figures shown on the right side were actually used by the assessee for making undisclosed investments. In view of the above, we are in agreement with the findings arrived at by the ld.CIT(A) that the addition made merely on the basis of jottings in the diaries is not justified and sustainable and the AO has to bring some corroborative evidence to show that these jottings/entries actually reveal some transaction of investment by the assessee and that the assessee has earned income out of it which was not disclosed to the department. To sum up, we are inclined to agree with the findings of the ld. First appellate authorities that the AO has not brought any evidence direct or corroborative on record to justify the additions made by him. Therefore, the ld. First appellate authority was right in deleting the same. Accordingly, ground No.1 of the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No.2 of the Revenue: 21 Apropos this ground, the ld.CIT-DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.30,50,000/- and Rs.66,73,636/- made on account of undisclosed investments as per pages 11-13 and 15 of Annexure A-1 by treating the IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 12 same as dump document ignoring the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that a statement of Shri Kishan Chand Tuteja was recorded during the course of search wherein he stated that the document is not in his handwriting and he is not in a position to explain the contents of the document. The ld.CIT-DR also submitted that the AO has made addition u/s 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure and u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investments. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the AO has made addition on the basis of documents found and seized during the course of search and seizure operation and u/s 132(4A) of the Act it has to be presumed that some disallowances is to be made and the onus was on the assessee to explain the contents of the seized documentary evidence and the assessee miserably failed to comply with the said requirement. The ld.CIT-DR, therefore, submitted that the addition made by the AO may kindly be upheld by setting aside the first appellate order. 22. Replying to the above, the ld. Counsel of the assessee drew our attention to relevant para 8 of the first appellate order and submitted that the AO made addition u/s 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure and u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investments whereas he did not bring any adverse material against the assessee to establish the factum of incurring unexplained expenditure and making unexplained investments by making relevant financial period. The ld. Counsel submitted that the paper was not in the handwriting of Shri Kishan Lal Tuteja and, thus, he was not able to explain the contents thereof. The ld. Counsel submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee on the basis of logical conclusion wherein no interference is called for. Therefore, the first appellate order may kindly be upheld by dismissing the ground of the Revenue. IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 13 23. On careful consideration of the above submissions, first of all, I note that the ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with the following observations and findings:- “8(ii) As per the Ld. AR that these additions have been made on the basis of the contents of page No. 11 to 13 of Ann.A-1. The Ld. AR has submitted that a statement of Sh. Kishan Chand Tuteja was recorded at the time of search. It was stated by Sh. Tuteja that the paper is not in his handwriting and he is not in a position to explain the contents of the paper. The AO has arbitrarily rejected the explanation of the assessee given at the time of assessment proceedings and has made the addition by holding that the amount of Rs. 30,50,000/- represents the undisclosed investment of the assessee and that Rs. 66,73,636/- represents the undisclosed sales made by the assessee. It is further contended that this paper is a loose sheet not forming part of any books of account and hence no addition can be made on the basis of this loose paper. It is further contended that the A.O. has not even attempted establish how the entries on this paper would have any remote connection with the business of the assessee company. It was further argued that the search has been conducted at the premises of the assessee company as well as the premises of the directors of the company and the department has not found any investment which are not reflected in the books of account. Even the stock of the company has been inventoried and no specific discrepancy was found. The A.O. made an addition of Rs. 30,50,000/- as unexplained investments and of Rs.66,73,636/- representing undisclosed sales made by the assessee without any basis and same deserve to be deleted. 8(iii) I have gone through the assessment order and the submissions made by the Ld. AR. I have also seen the documents on the basis of which impugned additions have been made. The AO has made the addition u/s 69C of the Act i.e. unexplained expenditure and u/s 69 that is on account of unexplained investments. I agree with the AR that the A.O. has not given any details as to where the investment has been made. Also the fact remains that during the course of search itself, Sh. Kishan Chand Tuteja one of the directors of the appellate company had stated that the paper is not in his handwriting and he is not in a position to explain the contents thereof. The same was reiterated by him during the course of assessment proceedings. The A.O. has failed to bring any material on record to indicate that the appellate company had actually made this investment of Rs.66.73.636/- and unexplained expenditure of Rs.30,50,000/.-. Even no corroborative or circumstantial evidence points in that direction. These are dumb documents and no addition can be made on the basis of the jottings on these pages. The additions made the A.O. are deleted for the same reasons as given while disposing of ground No.5 of this appeal.” IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 14 24. In view of the foregoing and after considering the rival contentions of both the sides, first of all, from the relevant part of the assessment order and submissions of the assessee we clearly note that the AO has made addition u/s 69C and 69 of the Act on the basis of documentary evidence found and seized during the course of search and seizure operation. From the relevant part of the assessment order, we note that the AO has not given any details as to where the investment has been made and on which count the expenditure has been made. It is pertinent to mention that the statement of Shri Kishan Chand Tuteja was recorded during the course of search operation wherein he explained that the documents are not in his handwriting and, therefore, he is not in a position to explain the contents thereof. In such a situation, it was the duty of the AO to bring some positive and adverse material or evidence against the assessee to establish that the assessee has, in fact, made unexplained expenditure and unexplained investments as per the noting on page 11 to 13 of Annexure A-1 and page 15 of Annexure A-1, but, we are unable to see any such exercise on the part of the AO to link the seized documents to the expenditure and the investment made by the assessee during the relevant financial period. In such a situation, when the AO has failed to bring any material on record to indicate that the assessee company had actually made investment of Rs.66,73,636/- and has incurred unexplained expenditure of Rs.30,50,000/-, then, in absence of any corroborative circumstantial or direct evidence on this issue, we have no hesitation to hold that the ld.CIT(A) was right in treating the document as dump document and on the basis of such dump document, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee merely on the basis of jottings/notings in the seized document. Therefore, we are unable to IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 15 see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings of the ld.CIT(A) and, thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly, ground No.2 is dismissed. Ground No.3 of the Revenue: 25. Apropos ground No.3, the ld.CIT-DR submitted that the AO rightly made addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis of page 15 of Annexure A-1 which contained details of payments made by the assessee on various dates from the month of January. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that the front side had highest figure of Rs.6 lakh and on the back, there were payment details of Rs.10,95,000/- made on the various dates during the month of January. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that the assessee expressed his inability to explain the entries made on the seized page No.15. The AO also noted that the entries have been made by the same person who had made the entries on page 10. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that the AO was right in presuming that the entries made on the said document page 15 were relevant to investments made by the assessee in January, 2000. Therefore, the total amount mentioned on the front and back portion of the document was rightly treated as undisclosed investment by the assessee. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee on the wrong basis, therefore, the first appellate order may kindly be set aside and the order of the AO may be restored. 26. Replying to the above, the ld.CIT-DR placed vehement reliance on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the AO has rightly made addition on the basis of page 15 which was found and seized during the course of search and seizure operation and, as per the provisions of section 132 (4A), it has to be presumed that IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 16 the document belongs to the assessee and the AO was validly empowered to make addition in the hands of the assessee on the strength of such seized document. The ld.CIT-DR lastly submitted that the impugned first appellate order may kindly be set aside and the order of the AO may be restored. 27. Replying to the above, the ld. Counsel submitted that the AO made addition u/s 69B of the Act on the allegation of unexplained investment by the assessee whereas the AO has not given any details as to where the investments have been made by the assessee. The ld. Counsel vehemently pointed out that Shri Kishan Chand Tuteja in his statement at the very first instance submitted that the document was not in his handwriting and he is unable to explain the contents thereof. Therefore, the AO has failed to bring any adverse positive material against the assessee to make a sustainable addition u/s 69B of the Act. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was correct and justified in deleting the same in absence of any corroborative and circumstantial evidence establishing the factum of undisclosed investment by the assessee. Therefore, first appellate order may kindly be upheld by dismissing the ground of the Revenue. 28. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, first of all, we note that the ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with the following observations and findings:- “9(iv) I have gone through the assessment order and the submissions made by the Ld. AR. I have also seen the documents on the basis of which impugned additions have been made. The AO has made the addition u/s 69B of the Act i.e. unexplained investment. I agree with the Ld. AR that the A.O. has not given any details as to where the investment has been made. Also the fact remains that during the course of search itself, Sh. Kishan Chand Tuteja one of the directors of the appellate company had stated that the paper is not in his handwriting and he is not IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 17 in a position to explain the contents thereof. The same was reiterated by him during the course of assessment proceedings. The A.O. has failed to bring any material on record to indicate that the appellate company had actually made this investment. Even no corroborative or circumstantial evidence points in that direction. It is a dumb document and no addition can be made on the basis of some figure written on it. The addition made by the A.O. is deleted for the same reasons which have been given while disposing of ground No.5 above.” 29. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the AO made addition on the basis of page No.15 found and seized during the course of search and seizure operation without giving any details as to where the investment has been made by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that Shri Kishan Chand Tuteja during the course of search operation as well as assessment proceedings, categorically denied to explain the contents of the impugned document and stated that it has not been written in his handwriting. In such a situation, it was the duty of the AO to bring other corroborative and positive evidence on record to indicate or establish that the assessee company had actually made undisclosed investment as per details, facts and figures mentioned at page 15 of the seized document. But, the AO has not brought on record any positive or adverse corroborative or circumstantial evidence to establish the factum of undisclosed investment by the assessee as per seized paper page No.15. In absence of other documentary evidence, the ld.CIT(A) was right in holding the said document as dump document and rightly concluded that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee merely on the basis of some figures written on the dump document. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that IT(SS)A No.142/Del/2005 IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 18 no interference is called for in the first appellate order on this ground. Accordingly, ground No.3 is also dismissed. 30. In the result, IT(SS)A No.184/Del/2005 is dismissed. 31. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee as well as the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.03.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23 rd March, 2023. dk Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi