IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T( SS) .A. Nos. 2 5 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CROSS OBJEC TI ON Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 (िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assess ment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) As stt . Co mmi s si on er of In co me- tax Ce ntr al C ir cle -1 (2 ), Ah me da bad Nil es h M a n su kh la l T oliy a Pl ot No .9 A, N r. R is hik es h Ap par t men t, J og ge r s Par k, Op p. Vi ra g Ba ug , Ja mna ga r, G uj ara t 40 00 57 बनाम बनामबनाम बनाम/ V s . & Nil es h M a n su kh la l T oliy a Pl ot No .9 A, N r. R is hik es h Ap art me nt , Jo gg ers Pa rk , Op p. Vi ra g Ba ug , Ja mna ga r, G uj ara t 40 00 57 As stt . Co mmi s si on er of In co me- tax Ce ntr al C ir cle -1 (2 ), Ah me da bad ᭭थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A A Z P T 5 8 4 4 Q (Appellant/Respondent) . . (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT. D.R. D a t e o f H e a r i n g 22/07/2024 D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 01/08/2024 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: These appeals in IT(SS) A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 are filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. Co mmissioner of Inco me IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 2 – – Tax (Appeals)- 11, Ah medabad (in short ‘the CIT( A)’) , dated 01.11.2019 for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. The cross objections in CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 are filed by the assessee for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. As the issues involved in these appeals are identical and interconnected, all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The appeal in IT(SS)A No. 25/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2014-15 is taken as the lead case. IT(SS)A No. 25/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2014-15 3. The Revenue has taken following grounds in this appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 4,04,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act on protective basis being on money received through assessee by Neminath Trade Pvt. Ltd. (NTPL) from individual plot buyers 1.1. The source of funds received in cash could not be explained by the assessee, therefore it has to be treated as his income exclusively, as unexplained. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,80,593/- out of total addition of Rs. 13,61,185/- made u/s 69A on account of proportionate commission received by the assessee on sale of plots of NTPL 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,25,20,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 3 – 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O be restored to the above extent.” 4. Ground No.1 pertains to protective addition of Rs.4,04,00,000/- in respect of on money received through assessee by Neminath Trade Pvt. Ltd. (‘NTPL’) from the individual plot buyers. NTPL had purchased Gujarat Cooperative Oilseed Growers Federation (‘GROFED’) land situated at Jamnagar admeasuring approx.. 1,00,000 sq. foot from the State Government. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the case is that a search operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted at the premises of one Ashit Vora at Ahmedabad, in the course of which unaccounted cash book of Barter Group was seized. It was explained that the entries in this cash book were in respect of receipt and payment of cash in respect of accommodation entries provided to various beneficiaries. From the seized cash book, receipt of cash on account of Jamnagar land was found recorded and in the narration the name of Nilesh Toliya (the assessee) was appearing against many of the entries. The assessee was also covered in the search operation. When enquired about the GROFED land deal, the assessee had explained that NTPL intended to sell GROFED land acquired from the State Government and that he had agreed to work as a consultant for the sale of the aforesaid land. The main role of the assessee was to bring the customers for which certain consultancy income was agreed to be paid and the sale of land of NTPL was completed in the process. It was admitted that unaccounted cash of Rs.14,84,00,000/- was received in total and the amount of cash received in F.Y. 2013-14 was Rs.4,04,00,000/-. In the seized material, the name of Nilesh Toliya, the assessee, was appearing as the person from whom Raju Barter Group had IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 4 – received the cash. Since the assessee did not explain the source of cash provided to Barter Group and the details of persons from whom cash received was also not identified, the AO treated the entire cash of Rs.4,04,00,000/- as belonging to the assessee and was added in his hands on protective basis. The AO had also given a finding in the assessment order that the substantive addition is required to be made in this regard in hand of purchasers. The addition as made by the AO was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), against which the Revenue is in appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of Shri H. Phani Raju, Ld. CIT.DR and Shri Biren Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee. We do not find any merit in the addition as made by the AO. There is no dispute to the fact that cash of Rs.4,04,00,000/- was received by NTPL on account of sale of land. The ownership of the land belonged to NTPL and the amount of cash received was the on money received by the NTPL towards sale of land. Therefore, the sale consideration of Rs.4,04,00,000/- in respect of sale of land was liable to be assessed in the hands of NTPL. The assessee was only working as an intermediary and had facilitated the sale of plots. So far as the source of cash is concerned, the same was paid by the purchasers of the plot and if any action was required to be taken on protective basis, it should have been taken in the hand of the buyers. As regarding identification of the buyers, who had provided the cash amount, is concerned, the AO could have obtained this information from the copy of sale deeds, as all the information regarding the seller and the buyer(s) was available therein. The submission of the assessee that he was only a mediator arranging the sale of plots has not been denied and disputed by the Revenue. We, therefore, do not find any IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 5 – merit in the addition of Rs.4,04,00,000/- as made by the AO in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to delete this addition is upheld. The ground as taken by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Ground No.2 pertains to addition of Rs.13,61,185/- ma de on account of co mmission income . I n the course of state ment recorded during the search, the assessee had stated that his main role in the transactions in respect of NTP L land deal was to bring customers , for which he had dema nded consultancy charge of Rs.50Lacs. Howe ver, the Co mpan y had agreed to pay Rs.25 Lacs only, which was yet to be recei ved. On the basis of these submissions, the AO had taken the entire co mmission received by the assessee at Rs.50 Lacs and t he proportionate a mount of Rs.13,61,186/- (in ratio of c ash a mo unt pertaining to this year to the total cash a mount) was added as co mmission received by the assessee during the current year . The Ld. CI T( A) held that the actual co mmission received b y the a ssesse was only R s.25 Lacs only and accordingly, he had sustained the addition made b y the AO to the extent of Rs.6,80,593/-. 7. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the Ld. C IT( A) wa s not correct in restricting the addition of Rs.25 Lacs on the basis of the a mount receiv ed b y the assessee subsequently on 14.12.2016 and which was s hown as outstanding credit in the books of account in this ye ar. The Ld. AR , o n the other hand, submitted IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 6 – that no addition was required to be made in this year as no a mount was rec eived at all during the ye ar. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. The AO had made the addition on the basis of state ment of th e assessee recorded during the search that he had de manded c onsultancy charge of Rs.50 Lacs fro m NTPL. Ho wever, the AO had conveniently ignored the further s ubmission of the assessee, made in the sa me state ment, that the co mpan y had in principally agreed to pa y Rs.25 Lacs onl y. It is also not the c ase of the Revenue that the a mount of Rs .50 La cs was actuall y re ceived b y the assessee. Therefore, no addition could have been made onl y on the basis of the de mand for consultancy as put forward b y the assessee. The assessee had received the sum of Rs.25 Lacs only towards the consultancy charges on 14.12.2016 and considering this fact, the Ld. CI T( A) was correct in upholding the proportionate consultancy inco me o f Rs.6,80,593/- in this yea r. Further, when the consultancy charge was shown as outstanding in the books, the a ssessee can’t take a plea that it should be taxed in the yea r of rec eipt. We do not find anything wrong with the order of the Ld . CI T(A) in this regar d. Accordingly, t he addition of Rs.6,80,593/- in respect of proportionate commission income pertaining to this year on sale of pl ots of NTP L is upheld. The ground ta ken by the Revenue is di smissed. IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 7 – 9. Ground No.3 pertains to addition of Rs.2,25,20,000/- in respect of unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee. In the course of search at the pre mises o f the assessee, a document identified as Annexure A-8 was seized. Page Nos. 3 t o 21 of this Annexure was computer t yped which reflected vario us cash and cheque transactions along with the na me , date and amount, Cheque No., cash a mount etc. and the na me of the assessee was appearing in these pages. So me of these pages have been reproduced in the assessment order. It was found that as per this document the total cash a mount r eceived fro m Nilesh Toliya directly or through others (Sanja yb hai, Vasi m, angadiyas etc.) was to the extent of Rs.2,25,20,000/-. These seized documents also contained certain cheque entries in the name of Nilesh Toliya. When these cheque entries were co-r elated with the bank account of the assessee in Bank of India, Ja mn agar B ra nch; it was found that the cheque entries appearing in the seized docu ments were re flected in the bank account of the assessee. On the basis of these evidences, the AO had dr awn a conclusion that the reference of Nilesh Toliya or Niles hbhai Toliya as r eflected in the seized docu me nt Annexure A-8, was in respect of t he assessee only. 10. When asked to explain the entries in these documents, the assessee had contended that this seized mate rial belonged to one Sh K D Kar mur a nd that he had no connection at all with the seized materials. It was sub mitted t hat Shri K D Kar mur was a IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 8 – partner of Krishna Infrastructure (‘KI ’) and that the documents pertaining to his fir m we re kept at the pre mises of Sh ri Nilesh Toliya. The AO, however, did not a gree with this explanation of the assessee. Considering the fact that the documents were seized fro m the pre mise s of assessee, the seized material s clearl y reflected the na me of the asses see and the che que entries appearing in the seized documents were also reflected i n the bank account of the assessee, the AO concluded that the seized materials belonged to the assessee. Accordingly, the entire cash a mount of Rs.2,25,20,000/- reflected as cash received fro m Nileshbhai, in the seized Annexure-A-8, was cons idered as unaccounted income of the assessee and added to th e inco me of the assessee by the AO. The Ld. C IT( A) had, howev er, deleted this addition for the reason that these cash a mounts, which were given to KI, were alread y assessed in the hands of the said fir m and that the addition in the hands of the assessee resulted into double addition. 11. Shri H. Phani Ra ju, the Ld. CI T.DR sub mitted that there was no dispute to the fact that the docu ment Annexure A-8 was seized fro m the pr e mises of the asse ssee. Further, the na me of the assessee was appearing in these docu ments on a number of occasions. Theref ore, the contention of the assessee that this document belonged to KI and that he was not aware about the nature of the transactions appearing in this document was not correct. The Ld. C IT.DR further submitted that the che que entries IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 9 – in the name of the assessee as appearing in Annexure A-8 we re tallying with the bank account of t he assessee, therefore, the correctness of the cash entries appearing in these documents also cannot be doubled. In view of these facts, the onus wa s squarely on the assessee to explain the source of cash that was appearing in the na me of t he assessee in the seized docu men ts. Merel y because this cash had ultimatel y tra velled to the account of KI, this doesn’t obviate the require ment of the assessee to explain the source of the cash. He assailed the order of the ld. CIT( A) and strongly supported the order of the AO while contending that the addition was corre ctly made in the h ands of the assessee. 12. Per contra, Shri B iren Shah, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that ‘kachcha cash book’ in Annexure A-8 was belonging to KI. He explained that the assessee was only a powe r of attorne y holder of KI for doing a d ministrative work of fir m. He further explained that the cash deposited in the name of the assessee in that docu ment belonged to the persons who had made advances or loans to KI and that the na me of such persons was also appearing in the narration below each entr y, in the sa me seized document. He contended that mer el y because the na me of the assessee was appearing in the seized documents, this doesn’t mean that the funds belonged to him. The Ld. AR submitted that in view of the fact that the real owners of the funds, who had advanced loan to KI, were also identified and mentioned in the Kachcha cash book itself, the addition as made in the hands of IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 10 – the assessee was not correct. He fu rther sub mitted that addition in respect of cash entries in this seized docu ment wa s alread y made in the hands of KI and was par t of addition of unexplained cash credit as mad e therein. There fore, no addition was called for in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR strongly su pported the order of the Ld . C IT( A). 13. We have carefull y considered the rival submissions and the materials brought on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the Annexure A-8 was seized fro m t he pre mises of the assessee. Therefore, the normal presu mption under Section 292C of the Act was that this document belongs to the assessee. However, this presumption can b e rebutted if it is de monstrated that the entr y appearing in the seized docu ment d oesn’t belong to the assessee but to other third parties. The fact t hat the na me of the assessee is appearing in this seized docu ment has not been denie d. In fact , the AO had verifi ed the cheque entries appearing in this seized document with the bank account of the assessee and established the co-relation between the two. This fact has also not been denied by the assessee. In view of this finding, the AO was correct in co ming to the conclusion that the entries in respect of cash transactions appearing in the na me of the asses see in the seized docu ments are also corr ect. Therefore , the onus was squarely on the assessee to explain the nature of entries appearing in his na me in th is seized docume nt. The assessee cannot be discharged from h is obligation on the pretext or explanation that IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 11 – the seized docu me nt doesn’t belong to hi m but pertained to KI. Even it is accepte d that this seized docu ment pertained to KI, there is no denial to the fact that the na me of the as sessee was appearing in this docu ment on a nu mber of occasions. Therefore, the onus was squarel y on the assessee to explain the nature of the transactions appearing in the seized documents in his na me . 14. The explanation of the assessee is t hat he was given power of attorney for ad ministrative works of KI and was also brought in as a partner of the fir m. As an a d ministrator, he h ad handed over the cash collected fro m differ e nt persons to the Accountant of KI for depositing the same in the bank accounts and at the sa me ti me instructions were also given as to who’s cash it was and, in whose a cc ount, it was to be deposited. It wa s further explained that the date of cash deposit in the bank account and as reflected in the Ka chcha cash book t allied, which prov ed that the cash did not belong to the assessee and that the transactions pertained to KI. I t was sub mitted that all the entries of cash and cheques were verifiable with reference to the bank account of KI and the respective depositors and, therefore, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee. 15. Before we consider the merit of th e rival sub missions, it will be necessar y to exa mine the na ture of entries ap pearing in the seized docu ments Annexure A- 8. We have taken a sa mple entry for the date 15.04.2013 for verification of the nature of IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 12 – entry and the expl anation of the assessee. The entry f or this date is found to be as under: D a t e P a r t i c u l a r s R e c e i v e d P a i d B a l a n c e 1 5 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 3 R e c e i v e d f r o m N i l e s h b h a i t h o r o u g h S a n j a y b h a i a n d A n i l b h a i d e p o s i t e d i n b a n k 1 8 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 8 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 D e p o s i t e d i n 0 0 5 a c c o u n t V i a D i l i p M a d i y a 5 L a c K h i m a A m b a l i y a 5 L a c D h a r m a t C h a v d a 3 L a c R a m e s h K a r m u r 5 L a c L a k h a n K a r a n g i y a S a n g a r e d y s i t e 9 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 , 0 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 H a s m u k h b h a i 3 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 6 , 6 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 B i t u b h a i N C L 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 6 , 1 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 S a l a r y o f f i c e 1 , 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 4 , 6 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 R a j P e t r o l e u m 1 , 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 3 , 1 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 S t a r a u t o m o t i v e s c a m p e r N C L d o w n p a y m e n t 2 , 3 6 , 9 5 3 . 0 0 1 0 , 8 0 , 0 4 7 . 0 0 H e a d o f f i c e 4 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 , 8 0 , 0 4 7 . 0 0 C a t g r a d e r G M M C O b o o k i n g 2 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 , 8 0 , 0 4 7 . 0 0 S a n j a y T r a d i n g 4 , 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 0 , 0 4 7 . 0 0 M i s c p a y m e n t o f f i c e 3 0 , 0 4 7 . 0 0 - As per the first e ntry, c ash of Rs.1 8,00,000/- was re ceived on 15.04.2013 fro m Nileshbhai through Sanja ybhai and Anilbhai and was deposited in the Bank. Narr a tion below this line shows deposit in 005 account via Dilip Madiya 5 Lacs, Khima Ambali ya 5 Lacs, Dhar mat C havda 3 Lacs, Ramesh Ka r mu r 5 La cs. A cop y of bank state ment of Shri Dhar mat Chavda has been brought on IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 13 – record fro m which it is found that cash of Rs .3 Lacs was deposited in his account on 15.04.2013 and a mount of Rs.3 Lacs was transferred to KI on the sa me da y vide instrument No.36886. In fact, there are s i milar cash deposits and i mmediate transfer of equivalent a mount to KI on various dates, in the account state ment of Dhar mat Chavda which tallies with the narration as appearing in seized docu ment Anne xure A-8. Bank state ment of certain other parties, na mel y Shre e Om Sai Enterp rise, Sahil Constructions, Keshur P Dangar, He mant P Kar mur , Karshanbhai D Kar mur ( HUF) , Parth Nitinkumar Pand ya have also been brought on record in the paper b ook filed, wherei n si milar transactions of cas h deposit and i mmediate transfer of equivalent a mount to KI is appearing and such entries are found cross tallying with the e ntries appearing in seized document Annexure A-8. 16. It is, thus, evident fro m the nature of transactions that cash of Rs.18 Lacs rec eived fro m Nilesh Toli ya on 15.04.2013 was first deposited in the bank accounts of Dilip Madiya (5 Lac ), Khi ma Ambati ya (5 Lac) , Dhar mat Chavda (3 Lac) a nd Ra mesh Kar mur (5 Lac ) a nd thereafter i mmediately transferre d to KI on the sa me date through cheque. Thus, the ulti mate destination of all the cash was to the account of KI . So fa r as the source of this cash is concerned, the assessee has explained that the cash of Rs.18 Lacs receive d on 15.04.2013 was not fro m the assessee, but the cash belonged to Dilip Madi ya, Khi ma Ambait ya , Dhar mat IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 14 – Chavda and Ra me sh Kar mur. The q uestion that arise s is, if the cash belonged to these four pe rsons, w hy the cash was first given to Nileshbhai and there after deposited in their respective accounts. These f our persons co uld have the mselves depo sited the cash i n their ow n account and transferred t he a mou nt to KI. Th e nature of entri es and the man ner of transactions rather sug gests that the ac counts of Dilip Madi ya, Kh i ma Ambait ya , Dhar mat Chavda an d Ramesh Kar mur and all other persons whose na me is appeari ng in the seized document Annexure-A-8, w ere utilized for laundering of the cash by first depositing the ca sh in diffe rent accounts and then transferring the a mou nt thro ugh ch eque to th e account of KI. This does not necessarily me an that the cash deposited in their accounts and subsequently transferred to KI belonged to the m. In essence , the y were me r e inter mediaries and their accounts were utilized for deposit of the cash in their accounts, and thereafter, transfer of the a mount through cheque to the account of KI i.e . for the purpose of laundering. Whether the account holders, in whose account the cash was deposited, were the real owners of the cash deposited in their bank account or not, has not been verif ied b y the Revenue as no enquir y was made in this regard. Apart fro m the cash deposits there were other cheque transactions in the na me of assessee, which was transfer red to the account of KI. Th e assessee has also not explained the purpose of the cheque pa yments through his account to the account of KI. IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 15 – Until and unless this aspect too is e xa mined, the re al nature of the transactions cannot be ascertained. 17. The Ld. C IT( A) has held that the unexplained cash of Rs.2,25,20,000/- was alread y added in the hands of M/s. KI under Section 68 of the Act and, therefore , no addition was called for in the hands of th e assessee. According to the Ld. CI T(A), the cash either belonged to the persons who gave loans to KI or it belonged to KI who had borrowed na mes and bank a ccounts to acco mmodate its cash. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not exa mined as to why the pa yment was made through the assessee if the cash belonged to respective persons who had given loan to KI. As alread y mentioned earlier, they could have the mselves deposited the cash in their accounts and transferred the a mount to KI. Further , wh y this cash was channelized through the assessee, has also not been exa mine d. A cop y of the a ssessment order of the KI for A.Y. 2014-15 has been brought on record. It is found therefrom that there is no mention of Annexure A-8 in the said order and no addition has be en made on the basis of this document. Rather, an addition of Rs.5,86,43,500/- has been made under Section 68 of the Act in resp ect of unsecured loan taken fro m 20 persons. F urther, a finding was recorded in that case that the entire unsecured loan was r ecei ved through account pa yee cheques and the manner of laundering of cash into cheque transactions as appearing in this seized documen t was not referred at all. Th e seized docu ment A-8 has neither b een owned IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 16 – up by KI nor c onsidered by the AO while co mp leting the assessment in the c ase of KI for A.Y. 2014-15. Therefor e, it can ’t be conclusively concluded that addition in respect of c a sh entries in this seized docu ment Annexure- A-8 was alread y made in the hands of KI. In vi ew of these facts, t he finding of the Ld. CI T( A) that addition in the hands of the assessee has resulted into double addition cannot be held as correct. 18. In view of the above facts, we dee m it necessary to set aside the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional AO to ex a mine the source of cash appearing in the name of the assessee in the seized document Annexure A-8. As the cas h was deposited in the na me of various persons and the assessee has contended that they are the real owners of the cash, the AO should verify the c orrectness of this claim aft er making independent enquiry f ro m those persons. Further, the reason for routing all these cash transactions through the assessee should also be enquired into. The assessee has also not explained the purpose of cheque payments as appearing in the seized docu ments. This aspect should also be exa mined b y the AO. In case the a ssessee is only found to be instrumental in arranging the loan transactions, then the co mmission income e arned b y the assessee for arranging such transactions should also be looked into. Needless to mention, the assessee should be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to exp lain the real nature of the transact ions. The IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 17 – ground ta ken b y the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 19. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part. IT(SS )A No. 26/Ahd/2020 – A.Y. 2015-16 20. The Revenue has taken the following grounds in this appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 10,80,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act on protective basis being on money received through assessee by Neminath Trade Pvt. Ltd. (NTPL) from individual plot buyers. 1.1. The source of funds received in cash could not be explained by the assessee, therefore it has to be treated as his income exclusively, as unexplained. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.18,19,407/- out of total addition of Rs. 36,38,814/- made u/s 69A on account of proportionate commission received by the assessee on sale of plots of NTPL. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O.” 21. All the grounds taken in this appeal are pari passu to the issues decided in IT(SS) A No .25/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2014-15. For the reasons as alr ead y discussed in detail in the said order, the grounds taken by t he Revenue are di s missed. 22. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. IT(SS)A Nos. 25 & 26/Ahd/2020 A/w. CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 [Nileshbhai Mansukhlal Tolia] A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 - 18 – CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 for A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 23. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR did not press the cross objections in CO Nos. 72 & 73/Ah d/2020 for A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16. Hence , both the cross objections are dis missed. 24. In the final re sult, Revenue’s appeal in IT( SS)A No.25/Ahd/2020 is allowed in part for statistical purpose, whereas, appeal in IT(S S)A No .26/Ahd/2020 & Asse ssee’s C O Nos. 72 & 73/Ahd/2020 are dis missed. This Order pronounced on 01/08/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 01/08/2024 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतआदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसारआदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप उपउप उप/सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकारसहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad