DCIT (Central)-2, Bhopal V. M/s. Ambika Infracom (P) Ltd., Raipur

ITSSA 254/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0792 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Additional evidence
• Section: 132; 69C; 133A; 13; 22

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 35 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, इंदौर Ûयायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-II, Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. M/s. Ambika Infracon Private Limited, C-2/2, Aishwarya Chamber, G.E.Road, Telibandha, Raipur (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) PAN: AAGCA9865L Revenue by Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, CIT DR Assessee by Ms. Nisha Lahoti and Shri Vijay Bansal, ARs Date of Hearing 17.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by a consolidated appeal-order dated 01.08.2019 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Raipur [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of a consolidated assessment-order dated 27.03.2015 passed by learned DCIT, Central-(I), Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 153C/143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Years [“AY”] 2012-13 and 2013-14, the revenue has filed these appeals. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 2 of 35 3. Brief facts leading to present appeals are such that a search u/s 132 was conducted by Income-tax Department on one “Amrit Group” where certain papers belonging to the assessee were found (Para No. 5 of assessment-order). Pursuant to same, the notices dated 02.09.2014 u/s 153C were issued to assessee for framing assessments of AY 2008-09 to 2012-13. It is further noteworthy that a survey u/s 133A was also conducted upon assessee on 30.11.2012 wherein certain papers were impounded (Para No. 9, 13, etc. of assessment-order). During survey, the statement of Shri Harpal Singh Arora, director of assessee-company, were also recorded wherein he admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 5 Crore on behalf of himself and his concerns but, however, the assessee did not make disclosure of any income while filing returns (Para No. 8 of assessment- order). Ultimately, the AO completed assessments of assessee u/s 153C/ 143(3) for AY 2008-09 to 2013-14 vide a consolidated assessment-order dated 27.03.2015 wherein he considered the outcome of papers seized/impounded during search/survey and made certain additions. The present appeals, however, pertain to two years only, namely AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 wherein the assessee contested additions in first-appeal before CIT(A) and succeeded substantially. Now, the revenue has come in next appeal before us assailing the relief granted by CIT(A). 4. Since both of the captioned appeals emanate from same orders of lower-authorities, we have heard them together at the request of parties and proceed to dispose of by this common order. AY 2012-13: 5. The grounds raised in this appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,24,85,740/-made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 3 of 35 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,24,44,376/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. Ground No. 1: 6. In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition to the extent of Rs. 2,24,85,740/- out of total addition of Rs. 2,50,15,080/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. 7. The AO has dealt this addition in Para No. 9 of assessment-order. The AO noted that during survey u/s 133A at the office premise of assessee, loose papers A-1 to 81 were impounded which was in the nature of a “Receipt-Book” containing 81 receipts issued in the name of M/s Amrit Homes Pvt. Ltd. (“AHPL”). These documents/Receipts demonstrated that various customers had booked shops in a project called “City Plaza” of AHPL and paid cash/cheques. The AO made a chart of 81 receipts with details such as R.No., Date, Name of customer, Shop No., Cash/cheque mode of payment and Amount. The AO further noted that there was a joint venture of “City Plaza” project formed by three parties, namely (i) M/s AHPL, (ii) M/s Symphony Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and (iii) the assessee. Then, from the working made in chart, the AO computed a total receipt of Rs. 4,41,64,500/- [Rs. 54,50,000/- through cheque (+) Rs. 3,87,14,500/- in cash] in AY 2011- 12 to 2013-14 on behalf of joint venture. The AO show-caused assessee to explain and reconcile cash-receipts with books of account. In response, the assessee submitted that the impounded documents being printed receipts were issued by M/s AHPL and did not belong to assessee; that the assessee was having only 22% share in joint venture which it received by cheque and the same was duly recorded in assessee’s books of account at the time of receipt from joint venture. However, the AO did not accept assessee’s submission. Ultimately, the AO did not make any addition qua receipts through cheques but made addition for cash-receipts. He computed year- wise break up and made addition of Rs. 1,27,60,920/-, 2,50,15,080/- and 9,38,500/- respectively in AY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 4 of 35 8. During first-appeal, the assessee made a detailed submission before CIT(A) which the CIT(A) has re-produced in his order. The main contention of assessee was such that the agreement of joint venture was available with AO at the time of framing assessment and the advances for booking of shops were collected by M/s AHPL and at the time of sale/possession of shops, the revenue sharing was done with assessee at 22%. The assessee also submitted that since the assessee was in relationship of joint venture with AHPL, the staff of AHPL were given a seat in the premise of assessee to monitor day-to-day work of joint venture. It was further submitted that the staff of AHPL used to visit customers and collect moneys and hand over same to the management of AHPL. Therefore, the assessee submitted, even if the Receipts-Book was found in the premise of assessee, the same did not belong to assessee but belonged to AHPL. The assessee also filed a chart giving explanation of 81 transactions reflected by those Receipts. 9. The CIT(A) considered submissions of assessee in Para No. 2.3/Page 17-29 of his order. He forwarded assessee’s submission to AO for comments but the AO filed objections in remand-report. Then, the CIT(A) observed that the AO has failed to appreciate the contention of assessee. On Page No. 18- 25 of his order, the CIT(A) re-produced the explanatory chart of 81 Receipts submitted by assessee. Based on assessee’s explanation, the CIT(A), on Page No. 26 of his order, segregated all transactions under three categories, namely (i) Category (a) - Bookings in respect of which the final registries of shops had been executed, total consideration had been included in turnover of joint venture and assessee’s share had been credited in assessee’s account; (ii) Category (b) - Bookings which had been cancelled and the amounts were returned; and (iii) Category (c) – Booking which had not been completed and the amounts were appearing as ‘advance’ in Balance-Sheet. The CIT(A) also mentioned “Sr No. of Cash-Book” in categorywise analysis done by him. Ultimately, the CIT(A) accepted the items of Category (a) and M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 5 of 35 (c) as genuine. But, however, he upheld addition qua Category (b) by observing as under: “The amount of Rs. 1,61,97,000/- claimed as customer advances were stated to be received in cash and claimed to be received in cash. There is no evidence that these amounts were received as booking advances. There is no confirmation from any of these customers. No other evidence has been furnished to establish that the amounts were taken as booking advance and returned back. Therefore, the credit is unexplained. Accordingly, an amount of 22% of this amount being Rs. 35,63,340/- is share of assessee in the JV for City Plaza project. The same is treated as assessee’s income and the addition to this extent is hereby sustained.” Thus, the CIT(A) upheld addition of 22% shares of assessee in the transactions classified by him under Category (b), thereby upheld addition of Rs. 35,63,340/- in AY 2012-13 and deleted rest of addition. 10. Before us, Ld. DR for revenue attacked the relief given by CIT(A) on several counts. He filed copies of all 81 Receipts at Page No. 1-81 in the Paper-Book filed at the instance of revenue. Drawing our attention to same, he submitted that those receipts are printed authentic receipts issued to customers and they were found from assessee’s premise. He submitted that the CIT(A) has made three categories of receipts just by accepting the explanation given by assessee without making any verification qua the veracity of assessee’s explanation. He submitted that the department is not sure as to how the CIT(A) has mentioned “Sr. No. of Cash-book” in the analysis given him. He submitted that in the remand-report, the AO has expressed a serious objection that the impugned cash-receipts were not entered in assessee’s books but his objection has not been considered. With reference to Category (a) classification done by CIT(A), Ld. DR also submitted that most of the registries were executed after search/survey. Lastly, he submitted that the AO has made addition on the basis of impounded material and the same must be upheld. 11. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee relied heavily upon the order of CIT(A) and submitted that the CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order after due M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 6 of 35 consideration of assessee’s explanation. Ld. AR prayed to uphold the CIT(A)’s order. 12. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the material held on record including the paper-books filed by both sides. At first, from the perusal of copies of Receipts filed in revenue’s Paper-Book, we observe that those receipts are on printed stationery of M/s AHPL; the receipt-book is a running book and some of the receipts are in cash and some are through cheques/DDs; the serial numbers are continuous irrespective of whether received through cheques or in cash; in case of receipts through cheques/DDs, complete details of cheques/DDs/Banks are also mentioned. Thus, there is no doubt on the fact that all those Receipts were in fact issued to the customers and amounts mentioned therein, through cheque or cash, were actually received. In fact, the assessee has also not raised any questioning on the genuineness of receipts. It is further an undisputed fact that the Receipt-Book was found in the premise of assessee. On perusal of Receipts, we find that the Receipts are on pre- stationery of M/s AHPL. The assessee has filed a copy of joint venture agreement dated 27.03.2008 at Page No. 182-195 of Paper-Book for AY 2013-14. The joint venture agreement shows that the assessee and M/s Symphony Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were land-owners (the directors of assessee and M/s Symphony are common i.e. Shri Harpal Singh and Shri Navin Agarwal) and M/s AHPL was a developer. Based on this joint venture, the assessee claims that entire collection from customers, whether through cheque or in cash, was made by M/s AHPL and the assessee only received its 22% revenue share on completion of sale. From this one fact is quite certain that even if the impugned Receipts were issued by M/s AHPL and the collections were made by M/s AHPL, the assessee had 22% share, if not 100%, in all receipts whether by way of cheque or cash. Hence, the assessee becomes duty bound to prove that all collections acknowledged by those 81 Receipts were in fact recorded in books of account of either assessee or M/s M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 7 of 35 AHPL. Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned, in his order, the “S.No. of Cash-Book” to that the transactions were recorded in books. But on a careful reading of the order of CIT(A), we do not find any mention by CIT(A) that he has in fact verified the relevant Cash-Book. Further, Ld. DR for revenue has raised eye- brow as to how the CIT(A) has mentioned the pages of Cash-Book in his analysis. Ld. DR has categorically stated that the CIT(A) has simply accepted assessee’s version without verification. We found a gross dis-satisfaction expressed in the pleading of revenue qua the CIT(A)’s finding. That apart, we also find a contradiction in CIT(A)’s approach. While the CIT(A) has not accepted the Category (b) transactions (i.e. Bookings which had been cancelled and the amounts were returned to customers) as genuine; he has accepted the Category (c) transactions (i.e. Booking which had not been completed and the amounts were appearing as ‘advance’ in Balance-Sheet) as genuine. Interestingly, he has mentioned reference of Cash-Book Pages in both of these categories and still taken contradictory conclusions. Thus, the findings made by Ld. CIT(A) are not sound enough. Needless to mention that the AO has, in remand report, mentioned that the transactions were not recorded in books of account. Therefore, in the situation, it would be most appropriate to refer this issue back to the file of AO who shall give an opportunity to assessee to explain the recording of transactions in the Cash- Book mentioned by CIT(A). This would settle the grievance of revenue properly. This ground of revenue is allowed in these terms. Ground No. 2: 13. In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 9,24,44,376/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. 14. The AO has dealt this addition in Para No. 13 of assessment-order. The AO has noted that during the course of survey upon assessee, loose M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 8 of 35 paper A-9, Page-8 was impounded which contained a handwritten jotting of calculations. The AO has scanned this paper in assessment-order as under: M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 9 of 35 15. The AO found that the impounded paper contains certain figures with headings “Deal-I”, “Deal-II”, “Deal-III”, “H.H. 3 house”, “Old balance upto Sep (All deals)”, etc. The AO deciphered the figures mentioned in the paper as representing amounts in lacs. Accordingly, the AO show-caused assessee seeking explanation. In reply, the assessee submitted that the impugned paper contained noting/jottings of estimates but does not contain any financial transaction and the paper does not belong to assessee. The assessee also submitted “The seized paper seems to be a dumb paper and not a speaking one. No addition is warranted in assessee’s case on the basis of such dumb paper.” The AO rejected submission of assessee by observing that the document was found from his premise and the argument of ‘rough jotting’ is a concocted story. Ultimately, the AO made a total addition of Rs. 15,39,12,416/- with break-up of Rs. 9,24,44,376/- in AY 2012-13 and Rs. 6,14,68,040/- in AY 2013-14. 16. During first-appeal, the assessee made submissions to CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) called remand-report from AO. The AO submitted following remand-report as re-produced by CIT(A) in his order on Page No. 58: “The above loose page no. 8 shows that the assessee has received cash of Rs. 15,39,12,416/- and this receipt has not entered in the books of accounts of the assessee. The jotting clearly shows total amount received of Rs. 15,39,12,416/- received by cash. The loose paper was found and impounded from the business premise of the assessee. Therefore, in view of the provisions of IT Act it is presumed that the transaction recorded in these slips pertain to the assessee. The argument ‘rough jotting’ is concoted story as the entry in this paper are exact. This office is in the view that the addition made by the AO of Rs. 9,24,44,376/- as undisclosed cash receipts are correct as additional evidences do not corroborate the claim of the assessee. Further, the assessee has provided affidavit in response to his claim along with approved map of Las Vista Project. However, affidavit can’t be tantamount to material record which strengthify the claim of the assessee. Also the additional evidence does not provide any new material M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 10 of 35 facts which are relevant for the assessment and support the claim of the assessee. Thus, from the discussion above, it is clear that the evidences are insufficient to establish the all cash transaction and thus additional evidences may not be accepted.” 17. Then, the CIT(A) deleted addition by observing and holding thus: “As seen above the ld. AO disbelieved the arguments of the assessee. AO has not provided any evidence either in the assessment order or in remand report to establish that the jottings on this page relate to the business of the assessee or in any way relate to the assessee company. It is undenied fact that project of assessee company does not involve construction of bungalows. Therefore, prima facie the jottings do not belong the assessee company. Except that the page was found from the office which was used by the director of assessee company as well as of M/s. Amrit Homes, no other fact shows that the jottings related to the assessee. On going through the assessee’s submission and examining the contents of the paper it is seen that the paper mentions about three deals, Deal-I, Deal-2 & Deal 3. It mentions about certain bungalow numbers 10,11,151,152,159,72 etc. for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14. Assessee has explained that these jottings are in respect of a project named as Floral city in which the assessee company is not involved. This project was being developed by M/s. Amrit Homes Pvt. Ltd. and it was a residential colony in which bungalows were being constructed. In addition to the jotting on this page there is no evidence on assessment order to connect the assessee company with M/s. Floral city or with any information contained on this page. It is not denied that the assessee has not done any project containing houses. The figures mentioned on this paper are not verified from any documents of the assessee. In any project if there is any element of cash transaction in the total consideration the transaction can be connected to the assessee by comparing the cheque part with the registered sale deeds. No such supporting document is available. Therefore, no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document. If general/causal/routine observations of the AO are to be considered as material evidence for the purpose of framing an assessments according to his whims and fancies which is not the spirit of the circulars issued by the Board on scrutiny assessment. An assessment cannot be made arbitrarily and in order that an assessment can be sustained, it must have nexus to the material on record. (CIT v. Mahesh Chand (1983) 199 ITR 247, 249 (AIL). It is the settled position that though the AO has very wide powers and is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, there is one over-riding restriction on his judgment and that is, that, he must act honestly and diligently on the material, howsoever, inadequate it was, and not vindictively, capriciously or arbitrarily. “Probability cannot be construed as material evidence to form an option by the AO to conclude an assessment and for drawing adverse inference against the appellant unless there is evidence to substantiate such probable inference.” M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 11 of 35 Assessment has to be made based on the real income theory, i.e. income to be determined for taxation must invariably be proved to have been the correct quantum of income earned by the appellant during the relevant previous year and the one presumed to have been earned. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 15,39,12,416/- is deleted.” 18. Before us, Ld. DR relied upon AO’s assessment-order and remand- report. He strongly contended that the paper was impounded from assessee and therefore as per provisions of Income-tax Act, the AO has rightly presumed it as belonging to assessee. Then, he submitted that the assessee has submitted newer details/affidavit before CIT(A) to show that the paper belonged to some project of M/s AHPL whereas no such details were filed at the first stage of assessment before AO. He submitted that the CIT(A) has just recorded assessee’s version in his order despite objections by AO in remand-report and given relief to assessee for which the department has a serious objection. He submitted that the assessee’s claim that it is not engaged at all in construction of bungalows, is a mere claim to get off scot- free. He submitted that it is a fact that the assessee has written-document of joint venture relationship with M/s AHPL for commercial shops but there can be an oral joint venture for construction of bungalows off-the-record. He submitted that the AO has rightly deciphered the figures mentioned in the paper as representing amounts in lacs and the assessee has not objected to the de-coding done by AO. With these submissions, Ld. DR strongly contended to uphold the addition made by AO. 19. Per contra, Ld. AR vehemently supported the CIT(A)’s order. Ld. AR submitted that the document does not belong to assessee and it is a dumb document. Ld. AR further submitted that the document has heading “Total to pay” on its top, therefore the AO has grossly erred in treating receipts by assessee. Ld. AR emphasized the very pleading made by assessee before CIT(A) that the document contains details of bungalow No. 10,11,151,152,159, 84 and the details like Ground floor, first floor, etc. whereas the fact is that the assessee has not done any project of M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 12 of 35 construction of bungalows. Therefore, it is basically wrong to attribute this document to assessee. Then, it is submitted that the document does not contain any ‘year’, yet the AO has linked with AY 2012-13 and 2013-14. With these submissions, Ld. AR contended that the AO has wrongly made additions. 20. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities. Firstly, we would like to re-produce the submission made by assessee to CIT(A) as noted by CIT(A) on Page No. 54 of appeal-order: “As has been stated earlier that the assessee is a joint venturist with M/s. Amrit Homes Pvt.Ltd. and M/s. Symphony Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. The appellant’s revenue share was 22%. According to the JV agreement the assessee/appellant has given their land to M/s. AHPL and in turn M/s. AHPL has developed the same into shops and offices. Mr. Pritipal Singh Bindra one of the director of M/s. AHPL is also carrying on other projects in Raipur. One such project is under the name and style of “Las Vista Project” at Amlidih, Raipur ( C. G. ). According to the director of the assessee company Shri Harpal Singh Arora an informal meeting was held with Mr. Pritipal Singh Bindra at Shri Arora’s office. Wherein Mr. Pritipal Singh narrated the details of part inflow and out flow of funds of “Lass Vista Project”. Which was scribbled down by the assessee company’s director and which was left in his office and later recovered by the survey team and which is now a subject matter of dispute. This fact is supported by an affidavit duly sworned by the director of the appellant company. Furthermore middle part of the loose paper in front of “if” 10-11, 151, 152, 59, 71 (six bungalows are mentioned for sale at the estimated rate of Rs. 3900/- per sq.ft.) which relates to “Las Vista Project”. Which was a project by M/s. AHPL and the assessee has nothing to do with the project. The JV agreement with the appellant, M/s. Collage, Raipur (C.G.) wherein total offices/shops were 51 in numbers, whereas in the above loose paper i.e. A-9 page 8, the numbers such as 151, 152, 59, 71 and 6 bungalows are appearing which cannot be co-related with “CITH PLAZA” but are related with “LAS VISTA PROJECT”. It will be pertinent here to mention that “LAS VISTA PROJECT” of M/s. AHPL was related to construction and sale of 154 bungalows. We enclosed herewith approved map/brochure of “LAS VISTA PROJECT” evidencing 154 bungalows. From the above discussion it is abundantly clear that the scribbling in the loose paper A-9, page 8 relates to “LAS VISTA PROJECT”a project by M/s. AHPL and that of the assessee/appellant company’s director. The word “TOTAL TO PAY” denotes the cash out flows and the word “IF” denotes the cash inflows in case of sale of 6 bungalows, further the number of the bungalows are also given along with their numbers. Also in front of the figure 215 it is stated (all deals approx.) This also shows that the loose paper jotting M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 13 of 35 are part of future planning and has nothing to do with the actual financial transactions of the company. Thus the assessee/appellant has been able to explain the jottings of the loose sheets which were merely estimates of future projections that too also of some other assessee. On the other hand the revenue has not brought on any material on record to conclusively proof that the loose paper denotes the income of the assessee. What is surprising is that, the AO has understood the word “TOTAL TO PAY” in the typed copy of the loose paper but has still proceeded to add back the same as income of the assessee without bringing any material evidence on record. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 9,24,44,376/- being bad in law and is liable to be deleted.” 21. Thus, in the submission made before CIT(A), the assessee made a detailed explanation on the nottings in the impounded paper whereas before AO the assessee made vague claim and did not adduce any such cogent explanation. Even then if one goes into the explanation made by assessee before CIT(A), the assessee clearly accepts that it’s director, Shri Harpal Singh Arora, was very much involved in the discussions relating to a project named ‘Las Vista Project’ for construction of bungalows and noted down the details of inflow-outflow. The involvement of assessee’s director to that extent, supports the contention strongly raised by Ld. DR that the assessee must be involved in construction of bungalows with M/s AHPL, though there may not be a written-evidence. Thus, Ld. DR is very right in contending that that the CIT(A) has simply accepted assessee’s explanation. Going further to the contents of paper, the title “Total to pay” mentioned on the top of the paper may well indicate that other parties of joint venture shall pay to the assessee, that means the assessee receives from other parties. Therefore, the contention raised by Ld. AR hardly has any merit. Another contention of Ld. AR that the paper does not mention any ‘year’, the AO has given a detailed reasoning in assessment-order and made a serious attempt to connect with different periods, the AO’s approach is very reasonable and reasoned. Still if the assessee has any objection against the inference drawn by AO, it is assessee’s onus to explain the ‘year’ part because months are very well mentioned in the document and the document was found from premise of assessee. Therefore, there is substance in the addition made by AO. At this juncture, from the perusal of order of CIT(A), M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 14 of 35 one can also find that the CIT(A) has given relief to assessee by making a finding that the impounded paper related to a project named “Floral city” of M/s AHPL whereas the assessee’s affidavit/explanation before CIT(A) was such that the paper related to “Las Vista Project”. Thus, prima facie it also appears that the CIT(A) has deleted addition on a wrong finding. Lastly, even if it is assumed that the paper related to any project of M/s AHPL, there is certainly a necessity to confront it with Shri Pritpal Singh Bindra, director of M/s AHPL since the assessee claimed before CIT(A) “According to the director of the assessee company Shri Harpal Singh Arora, an informal meeting was held with Mr. Pritpal Singh Bindra at Shri Arora’s office wherein Mr. Pritpal Singh narrated the details of part inflow and outflow of funds of “Las Vista Project”, which was scribbled down by the assessee company’s director and which was left in his office and later recovered by the survey team.” Thus, looking into overall conspectus of the case, we are of the considered view that it would be most appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of AO who shall carry out necessary exercise of confronting Shri Pritpal Singh and thereafter take a final decision. Needless to mention that the AO shall also give full opportunity to the assessee to represent it’s case and counter the submissions of Shri Pritpal Singh in case of necessity. Thus, this ground is also remanded to AO. AY 2013-14: 22. The grounds raised in this appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,38,500/-made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,14,50,000/-made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,11,72,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 15 of 35 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,20,00,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,14,68,040/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,20,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,10,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 91,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” Ground No. 1: 23. In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 9,38,500/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. The issue involved in this ground has the same facts as in Ground No. 1 of AY 2012-13 adjudicated in foregoing part of this order. Hence the view taken therein shall apply mutatis mutandis. Applying the same view, this ground is remanded back to AO for deciding afresh in the very same terms. Ground No. 2: 24. In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition to the extent of Rs. 4,14,50,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 4,17,50,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. 25. The AO has dealt this addition in Para No. 10 of assessment-order. He has noted that during survey proceeding, a diary A-3, Page No. 10 was M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 16 of 35 impounded. The AO has scanned this document in assessment-order. According to AO, this document contains working of cash receipt of 417.50 from various persons against sale of two bunglows. The AO deciphered the figure of 417.50 as 4,17,50,000/-. As the paper did not contain any date, the AO presumed it as pertaining to current AY 2013-14 because it was impounded on 30.11.2012. When the AO show-caused assessee, the assessee made following submission as noted by AO in Para No. 10.2 of assessment-order: “The reffered seized paper A-3 (Page No. 1 to 27) contains rough notings/jottings for memory, and does not contain any business transactions. It may contain forecasting or estimations as appearing on Page No. A-3 page 10. Every business transaction of the assessee is recorded in the books of accounts and there is no transaction outside the books. As mentioned in the initial paragraph, the assessee company is holding 22% share in the joint venture, and all the payments received by assessee is through cheques only. No contingence be given to the rough jottings.” The AO, however, did not accept assessee’s submission. He mentioned that the document contained names of various persons and the nature of transactions. He mentioned that the document had been found from premise of assessee. Ultimately, he made addition of Rs. 4,17,50,000/-. 26. During first-appeal, the assessee submitted explanation of all transactions appearing in the document one by one in a tabular format. The CIT(A) forwarded assessee’s submission to AO comments. The AO submitted remand-report objecting primarily that during assessment-proceedings, the assessee was given several opportunities but the assessee did not explain. He also commented that the assessee has simply explained the nature of transactions but failed to explain the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of parties. 27. The CIT(A) has, on Page No. 34-38, re-produced the entire tabular chart submitted by assessee. The same is scanned and re-produced below for an immediate reference: M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 17 of 35 M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 18 of 35 M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 19 of 35 M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 20 of 35 M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 21 of 35 M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 22 of 35 28. After considering assessee’s explanations in above chart, the CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee had explained all nottings except a noting of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Accordingly, he upheld addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- and deleted rest of the addition of Rs. 4,14,50,000/-. 29. Ld. DR for revenue has filed a clear copy of the impounded document on Page No. 82 of his Paper-Book. He pointed out a serious flaw in assessee’s behaviour. He submitted that when the AO show-caused assessee during assessment-proceeding, the assessee replied that the impounded paper contained rough nottings/jotting for memory and did not contain any business transactions. But, during first-appeal before CIT(A), the assessee submitted explanation of all transactions one by one. He strongly objected to the approach of assessee. Then, he went on submitting that the CIT(A) has simply recorded whatever the assessee submitted before him and did not carry out any verification of assessee’s explanation; still deleted addition almost fully and confined to confirming a small addition of just Rs. 3,00,000/-. Therefore the order of CIT(A) deserves to be reversed. Ld. DR urged to uphold the addition made by AO. 30. Per contra, Ld. AR heavily relied upon the order of CIT(A). She submitted that the assessee has explained each and every noting in the impounded document and the CIT(A) has carefully considered the same. She submitted that the assessee was not able to explain only one entry of Rs. 3,00,000/- for which the CIT(A) has already confirmed addition and the assessee has accepted CIT(A)’s order. 31. We have considered rival submissions of both sides. On perusal of the orders of lower-authorities, we find sufficient merit in the submissions of Ld. DR that the assessee has made explanation of various nottings in the impounded paper before CIT(A) but not before AO. We further find that although CIT(A) forwarded assessee’s explanation to AO but the AO expressed objection against assessee’s explanation with the reasoning that M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 23 of 35 no explanation was made during assessment-proceeding despite several opportunities. Furthermore, the AO also raised eye-brow on the assessee’s explanation, particularly, the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of parties/transactions. There is a strong objection by Ld. DR also that the CIT(A) has merely recorded assessee’s explanation without any verification and granted almost full relief barring sustenance of a small addition of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the AO must get an opportunity to verify the explanation submitted by assessee to CIT(A). Therefore, this is a fit issue to be remanded back to AO for needful exercise. Accordingly, we remand this ground to the file of AO for adjudication afresh. The AO shall carry out verification of the explanation submitted by assessee and the assessee shall co-operate the AO. Ground No. 3: 32. In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 1,11,72,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. 33. The AO has dealt this addition in Para No. 11 of assessment-order. He has observed that during survey proceeding, a diary A-3, Page No. 20 was impounded which contained handwritten jotting of Rs. 2,36,52,000/-. The AO noted that the document showed cheque receipt of Rs. 99,80,000/- and receipt of Rs. 1,11,72,000/- by other than cheque. Accordingly, when the AO show-caused assessee to explain the portion of Rs. 1,11,72,000/-, the assessee made following submission: “11.2 The assessee vide reply dt 4.3.2015 stated that :- “With regard the nottings on the seized paper A-3 page no. 20, it is submitted that the representatives of M/s. ITPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Kotak Mahindera Bank had visited the assessee’s office as they were in look out for branch office for the bank, and discussion concentrated on the shops-buildings suitably modified and furnished as per the requirement of the bank and a rough estimation was made. The total amount of the estimation came to Rs. 23652000 which included the cost of shop-office, registration cost, and the M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 24 of 35 furnishing cost however, even after several round of discussions, the ITPL Infrastructure people were not agreeing to the amount. Thus they have preferred to have the office premise on naked condition without any furnishing/partitions. The cost of the shop-office as appearing on the rough noting was Rs. 9980000 and Rs. 1051000 was given for expenses of stamp duty and registration. There was no agreement for the furnishing. In the initial statement of Mr. Harpal Singh recorded on 30.11.2012, he had categorically explained these facts, and the above transaction is verifiable from the registered documents, and also from the books of accounts of the assessee.” 34. However, the AO did not accept assessee’s submission. He insisted that the assessee has not recorded the cash-receipt of Rs. 1,11,72,000/- in books of account. He noted that the document was found from premise of assessee. This way, he made addition. 35. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted addition by observing and holding this: “4.3 This ground is related to addition made on the basis of jotting at page - 20 of diary A-3. The jotting have been reproduced at page – 15 of the assessment order. As per the assessee it was decided that customer M/s. ITBL Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. to, sell the shop premises for use as office for a total amount of Rs. 23652000/-. The customer was unable to purchase the fully furnished office. Therefore, deal was struck to sell incomplete structure at Rs. 9980000/- and Rs. 1051000/- was received for the expenses of stamp duty and registration. AO did not believe the assessee’s explanation and treated the entire amount of Rs. 23652000/- as sales consideration for the shop. AO has added Rs. 1,11,72,000 which also included Rs. 1051000/- received by the assessee in cheque and which has been duly included in the books. I find that these jottings are not supported by any evidence. The submission was forwarded to the AO and his comments were received – “The assessee has received cash of Rs. 1,11,72,000/- which was mentioned clearly in the diary entry by the assessee and AO after doing through enquiries has added the same as undisclosed receipts in the hand of the assessee. The assessee was further asked to reconcile the cash receipts with his books of accounts which he failed to do during the assessment proceedings. The assessee has now given additional evidences where assessee claims that there was a deal with M/s. ITPL Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. for sale of shops which could not be realized with prospective purchaser in the manner as agreed previously. Instead the shop were sold for the consideration of Rs. 99.80 lakhs as the area was shorter as promised by the seller. further assessee could not confirm the negotiation rate with the party as given in the submission. As an additional evidence assessee has provided copy of legal notice issued by M/s. ITPL Infrastructure P.Ltd. The M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 25 of 35 additional evidence failed to substantiate that the cash receipts were not received by the assessee as mentioned in the diary. The additional evidence also fail to provide the actual price in deal which could confirm the contention of the assessee. Not only the AO has adopted entire amount of Rs. 23652000/- as sales consideration without any evidence but also has added double amount of Rs. 1051000/-. Assessee has explained that there was dispute with this party and the shop was sold in knocked down condition without furnishing. Papers relating disputes have also been filed. In view of these documents here is no reason not be believe the explanation of the assessee. As per legal notice serve d on behalf ITBL by Equi Law Partners Adv. and Legal Consultants dt. 3.11.2015 where it has been claimed that assessee gave possession to the lesser area than agreed and hence ITBPL demanded refund of balance money from the assessee company. Since the amount of sales consideration as per documents has been shown by the assessee in his books of accounts the addition is hereby deleted. There is no evidence to support the contents of the jottings and to refute assessee’s claim that the shop was sold in knocked down condition. It is a settled law that the ad hoc disallowances made on estimations and presumptions and on the basis of dumb document is unsustainable. Unless these are conclusively proved against the appellant, any estimated enhancement to the income declared on the basis of audited books, was unsustainable on facts and in law. Since the declared profit was accepted as reasonable, it was not permissible for the AO to go back to the expenses claimed under P/L A/c to make estimated additions. Assessment has to be completed on the basis of records and material available before the AO and personal knowledge and excitement on events and extraneous facts should not lead the AO to a State of affairs where the salient/primary/direct evidences are overlooked and should not influence the AO for resorting to ad hoc additions/disallowances. (Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, 26 ITR 775). In a case where the transactions of the appellant have been accounted, documented and supported by the material evidences for deriving logical conclusions, without proving falsity of the same, ad hoc additions/disallowances should not be made by the AO in a routine manner merely on probabilities, suspicion and surmises since the same action of the AO degenerates the spirit for which the quality assessments were emphasized by the Board. (Mukesh R. Marolia v. Addl. CIT, (2006) 6 SOT 247 (Mum). If general/casual/routine observations of the AO are to be considered as material evidence for the purpose of framing an asset, the AO shall lhave blanket and arbitrary powers to dispose of the scrutiny assessments according to his whims and fancies which is not the spirit of the circulars issued by the Board on scrutiny assessment. An assessment cannot be made arbitrarily and in order that an assessment can be sustained, it must have nexus to the material on record. (CIT vs. Mahesh Chand (1983) 199 ITR 247, 249 (AIL). Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,11,72,000/- is hereby deleted.” M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 26 of 35 36. Before us, Ld. DR relied upon the order of AO and prayed to uphold the addition. He submitted that the assessee has developed a story of estimation of furnished house though the amount was cash-component received and not recorded in books of account. 37. Per contra, Ld. AR vehemently supported the order of CIT(A) and claimed that the addition has been rightly deleted. Ld. AR also drew our attention to Page No. 196-241 of Paper-Book where a copy of the registered- deed of the shops sold to M/s ITPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 99,80,000/- is filed. Ld. AR also mentioned that a dispute arose between assessee and M/s ITPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for which the assessee received a notice from “Equi Law Partners, Advocates and Legal Consutants” engaged by M/s ITPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., copy of notice is placed at Page No. 242-245 of the Paper-Book. Thus, it is very much clear from these documents that the assessee could sell shops for Rs. 99,80,000/- only and rest of the figures mentioned in the impounded document was just a mere working/estimation between parties which was never acted upon. 38. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower authorities as well as the documents filed in Paper-Book to which our attention is drawn. On reading of Page No. 242 of Paper-Book being the notice received by assessee from “Equi Law Partners, Advocates and Legal Consutants” engaged by M/s ITPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., we find that in Para No. 1, they have clearly mentioned that their client (i.e. M/s ITPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) is engaged in business of providing infrastructure facilities to its clients all over India in telecom and other sectors. This supports, to a great extent, the authenticity of assessee’s claim that some working was done in the impounded document with the people of M/s ITPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank for establishing a branch office. Therefore, there does not appear to be any plausible reasoning to dis-believe the assessee’s submission. We also find, from perusal of the registered-deed of the shops sold to M/s ITPL M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 27 of 35 Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., that the assessee received consideration of Rs. 99,80,000/-. On perusal of the impounded document, we find that there is a mention of Rs. 1,01,21,000/- with the caption “Balance” and there is no mention of either paid or received. Further, another sum of Rs. 10,51,000/- mentioned in the document is explained by assessee towards stamp duty and registration. The assessee is also consistent in its explanation before AO and CIT(A). The CIT(A) has deleted addition by accepting the consistent explanation of assessee. Being so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A); the same is hereby upheld. This ground of revenue is, thus, dismissed. Ground No. 4: 39. In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 4,20,00,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. 40. The AO has dealt this addition in Para No. 12 of assessment-order. He has noted that a loose-paper A-9, Page-7 was impounded during survey, which contained handwritten jotting of calculations. The AO has also scanned and re-produced document in assessment-order, which we also re- produce for an immediate reference: M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 28 of 35 M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 29 of 35 41. Analysing this document, the AO observed that it contains details of certain Bungalows costing around Rs. 30 lac each, aggregating all to Rs. 4,20,00,000/-. The AO also mentioned that the document did not contain any date but the same was impounded during survey on 30.11.2012, therefore it is assumed as relating to AY 2013-14. Accordingly, when the AO show-caused assessee, the assessee replied that the document merely contained estimation of probable receipts upon possession/registry of bungalows and it does not reflect any financial transaction. It was further submitted that the assessee does not deal in bungalows at all, the assessee dealt only in commercial shops. However, the AO was not satisfied with assessee’s submission and made addition. 42. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) considered submissions of assessee and ultimately deleted addition. The crux of assessee’s submission as noted by CIT(A) is as under: “5.3 I have gone through the submission of the appellant and also perused the assessment order. This ground has been taken against addition made on the basis of page 7 of loose paper A-9 found from Aishwarya Chambers, GE Road, Raipur. This page has been reproduced at page-17 of assessment order. There are four figures of 210, 60, 90 and 60. The total amount of Rs. 420 lakhs has been treated as assessee’s income in the AY 2013-14. Assessee has explained that the jottings are regarding the residential colony which has been developed by M/s. Amrit Group which has constructed separate bungalow in that colony. As per the AO sale of bungalows as mentioned in the loose paper found during the search and assessing officer after thorough enquiry has added them on account of undisclosed cash receipt. The assessee on the other hand claims that they are probable receipts from the joint venture project “City Plaza”, GE Road, Opposite Rajkumar College, Raipur. The assessee has produced a copy of approved map and brochure as additional evidence.” 43. Before us, Ld. DR relied upon the assessment-order. Further, he made the very same pleading, as narrated in an earlier part of this order, that the assessee wants to get off scot-free by making a claim that it is not engaged in construction of bungalows whereas the assessee seems very much engaged in that activity off-the-record. Ld. DR further emphasized that the M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 30 of 35 document was impounded from assessee and therefore, based thereon, the AO has rightly made addition. 44. Per contra, Ld. AR vehemently supported the order of first-appeal. Ld. AR strongly contended that the assessee is not engaged in the activity of construction of bungalows; the assessee’s business was only commercial shops. 45. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower authorities as also the impounded document. It is a fact that the document was impounded from assessee and therefore the assessee has burden to explain the notings made therein beyond doubt. On perusal of said document, it is also clear that exact bungalow numbers and amounts against those bungalows are clearly mentioned in the document. The assessee made an explanation before AO that the amounts were probable receipts. Before CIT(A), the assessee again mentioned the same thing but with some more clarity that they were probable receipts of joint venture project “city plaza”. Notably, the project “city plaza” is a project in which the assessee is interested alongwith M/s AHPL. Taking into the vivid explanation made by assessee before CIT(A) connecting the notings with M/s AHPL, we are of the view that a further probe from M/s AHPL is very necessary to ascertain the exact status of the transactions mentioned in the document. Therefore, we are remitting this ground back to the file of AO who shall carry out necessary exercise and adjudicate afresh. This ground is thus remanded to AO. Ground No. 5: 46. In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 6,14,68,040/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed cash receipts. The issue involved in this ground has the same facts as in Ground No. 2 of AY 2012-13 adjudicated in foregoing part of this M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 31 of 35 order. Hence the view taken therein shall apply mutatis mutandis. Applying the same view, this ground is remanded back to AO for deciding afresh in the very same terms. Ground No. 6, 7 and 8: 47. In these grounds, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting additions of Rs. 21,20,000/- and Rs. 13,10,000/- made by AO fully. Further, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition partly to the extent of Rs. 91,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 22,61,000/- made by AO. These additions were made by AO u/s 69C on account of unexplained expenditure. 48. The AO made impugned additions vide Para No. 14, 16 and 17 of assessment-order. The CIT(A) has adjudicated all these additions in a consolidated manner vide Para No. 7.1 to 7.3 of his order. 49. Before us, Ld. DR for revenue supported the order of AO whereas Ld. AR supported the order of first-appeal. 50. We have carefully gone through the orders of lower-authorities. On perusal of order of Ld. CIT(A), we instantly find that CIT(A) has already upheld the addition made by AO except for striking off the repeatitive addition made therein. For the sake of immediate reference, we re-produce below the order of CIT(A): M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 32 of 35 M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 33 of 35 M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 34 of 35 M/s. Ambika Infracon P.Ltd., Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 253 & 254/Ind/2019 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 35 of 35 51. Ld. DR for revenue is not able to controvert the analysis and conclusion made by CIT(A). Therefore, in the situation, we do not have reason to interfere with CIT(A)’s order on this issue. Consequently, the same is upheld. The grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. 52. Resultantly, the ITA of AY 2012-13 is allowed and ITA of AY 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2023. Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore Ǒदनांक /Dated : 13.10.2023 CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore