The JCIT (OSD) Central-1, Bhopal, Bhopal V. Shri J P Gupta, Jhansi

ITSSA 34/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3382 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Loose papers
• Section: 6; 132; 40A(3); 143(3); 153A; 13; 22

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ,, , इंदौर यायपीठ, ,, , इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) IT(SS)A No. 34/Ind/2019 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) And IT(SS)A No. 35/Ind/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) JCIT (OSD)(Central)-I Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. Shri J.P. Gupta, 811/5A, Shakti Nagar Colony, Near Kunj Bihari Mandir, Jhansi (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) PAN: ACCPG5692G Assessee by Ms. Nisha Lahoti, AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 20.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: 1. These two appeals by Revenue are directed against a common-order dated 31.12.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-3/BPL/IT-11618,11619,11624, 11625,11634 & 11635/2017-18, arising out of the order of assessment dated 22.12.2017 passed by the learned DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], concerning the Assessment-Year 2014-15 and 2015-16. Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 2 of 15 2. The assessee is a chartered accountant earning income from the profession. A search u/s 132 was conducted on 07.01.2016 to 08.01.2016 on one Shivhare Group wherein the asessee was also searched. Pursuant to search, notices u/s 153A for 6 years were issued for assessment-year 2010- 11 to 2015-16 to the assessee calling the returns of income. The assessee filed returns of income for all years which were duly assessed by Ld. AO after making certain additions. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee. Now being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed these appeals before us. 3. Both of these appeals emanate from a single order of assessment passed by Ld. AO as well as a single order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, these appeals are disposed of together by this common order. We first take up appeals of both sides for AY 2014-15 and thereafter AY 2015-16. ITA No. 34/Ind/2019 – A.Y. 2014-15: 4. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the detailed Remand Report sent by AO on 30/08/2018 and deciding the issues without calling for remand-report on specific issues as warranted by the OM dated 07/11/2014. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,54,270/- made AO on account of unexplained cash-payment for A.Y. 2014-15. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,27,03,010/- made by AO on account of undisclosed receipts for A.Y. 2014-15.” 5. In Ground No. 1, the revenue has claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered remand-report submitted by Ld. AO. The Ld. AR placed reliance on her Written-Submission filed on record, a copy of which is also served by Ld. AR to Ld. DR directly. On perusal of same, we observe that the Ld. AR Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 3 of 15 has pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned in Para No. 1.1 / Page No. 8 of the order that the Ld. AO was asked to specify whether he / she would like to be present at the time of hearing in view of provision of section 250(2)(b) of the Act but in absence of any request from the Ld. AO, he had presumed that the AO does not want to attend the hearings personally. Ld. AR has further drawn attention to the Page No. 38 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) where the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned “The AO submitted his remand report on 05.11.2018 which is placed on record. The AO has not specifically commented on ......”. Placing reliance upon these, the Ld. AR has submitted that the ground taken by the department does not stand in the light of very specific and categorical findings given by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR has not agitated the submissions put forward by Ld. AR. Being so, we find merit in the submission of Ld. AR and are inclined to dismiss the Ground No. 1 of AY 2014-15. 6. Ground No. 2 relates to the addition of Rs. 10,54,270/- on account of unexplained cash-payment. 6.1 The Ld. AO has made this addition by observing as under: Page 38 of order: “12.5 On going through the impounded document page 156 to 163 of LP-2 impounded from 1 st Floor Mayur Apartment, Near Kunj Bihari Mandir, Jhansi. It was found that the document in LP-2 consisted of cash book of Shri JP Gupta. The cash book is extract of Tally accounting software and was impounded from the office premise of Shri JP Gupta. Along with the cash book the documents pertaining to bank book were also impounded and inventoried in LP-2. It is evident in tally accounting software the accounting entries cannot be made in vacuum rather; the entries are made on the basis of the actual transactions. Also the bank book of Shri JP Guta is impounded along with the cash book. Therefore, the cash book is treated as reliable cash book. From the different transactions in the cash book it was found that Shri JP Gupta has made certain payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- Considering the fact that no explanation has been given by Shri JP Gupta and also considering the fact that Shri JP Gupta has availability of sufficient cash balance to make payments of amounts less than Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 4 of 15 Rs. 20,000/-, it is clear that the amount in excess of Rs. 20,000/- must have been systematically removed from the Audited cash book. Thus the cash book impounded from UPO-1 is an alternate cash book which has the real transactions. Therefore, the amount of payments made in excess of Rs. 20,000/- mentioned in impounded cash book in absence, of any explanation of assesse is to be treated as unexplained cash payments. The page number wise details of unexplained cash payments are mentioned as under: Page No. of LP-2 Date Particulars Unexplained cash payments 156 31.03.2012 Salary of staff 120000 156 31.03.2012 Misc. Exp 46250 AY 2012-13 Total 166250 160 31.03.2013 Other creditors 177230 160 31.03.2013 Land & Building 1800000 AY 2013-14 Total 1977230 162 01-04-2013 JRF Realty India LLP 20000 161 12-03-2014 Other investment 105680 160 31-03-2014 Land & Building 678590 160 31-03-2014 Gupta Associates 150000 160 31-03-2014 Gupta Jai & Company 100000 AY 2014-15 Total 1054270 163 20-02-2015 Gupta Associates 70000 163 31-03-2015 JRM Green India Estate LLP 500000 AY 2015-16 Total 570000 Considering the fact that Shri JP Gupta has not explained the above transactions hence, the cash payments of Rs. 166250/-, Rs. 19,77,230/-, Rs. 10,54,270/- and Rs. 5,70,000/- are treated as unexplained cash payments made by Shri JP Gupta during AY 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 respectively. The amounts as mentioned in above table are added to the total income of Shri JP Gupta in respective assessment years.” 6.2 During appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition by observing as under: Page 34 of order: “(c) For AY 2014-15:- Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 5 of 15 In AY 2014-15 addition of Rs. 10,54,270/- was made on account of unexplained cash payments, Rs. 20,000/- on account of JRG Reality India LLP, Rs. 1,05,680/- as other investment, Rs. 6,78,590/- on account of land and building investment, Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of Gupta Associates and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of Gupta Jai and Company. The AO during assessment proceedings, found that appellant has made payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. The AO also stated that the appellant have sufficient cash balance to make payments less that Rs. 20,000/- thus, it was presumed by the AO that the amount in excess of Rs. 20,000/- have been systematically removed from the Audited cash book. Therefore, the AO disallowed the entire payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. Appellant during appellate proceedings submitted that Rs. 10,54,270/- are payments/investments. These investments are duly reflected in financial statement and are also shown while filing return of income. In support appellant has filed copies of balance sheet and income and expenditure account. On perusal of copies of ledger account of appellant and other firms/companies it was seen that appellant on one hand has withdrawn cash from his capital account and on other hand had deposited the same in capital account with other firm/company. Further, AO has failed to bring on record how would the appellant have systematically removed the entireties in excess to Rs. 20,000/-. The provisions of section 40A(3) are clearly not applicable in the case of appellant because none of the expenditure was made in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. However, investments were made in cash which are not covered u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act. Further the AO in para 12.5 has clearly mentioned that appellant have sufficient cash to make payment in cash. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 10,54,270/- is Deleted.” 6.3 Before us, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of Ld. AO. On the other hand, the Ld. AR relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the Written- Submission filed by her. 6.4 On a careful consideration of the material relied upon both sides, more particularly the details of payments noted by Ld. AO which is already reproduced above and once again being reproduced below for a quick reference, we observe that the impugned cash-payments are in the nature of investments in partnership firms or properties. But the assessee is a professional Chartered Accountant earning income from CA profession only, Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 6 of 15 these payment are not the business expenses of assessee and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that section 40A(3) is not applicable: Details of Payments 162 01-04-2013 JRF Realty India LLP 20000 161 12-03-2014 Other investment 105680 160 31-03-2014 Land & Building 678590 160 31-03-2014 Gupta Associates 150000 160 31-03-2014 Gupta Jai & Company 100000 AY 2014-15 Total 1054270 We further observe that these transactions were already recorded in the books of account of assessee and duly reflected in the financial statements, which is adequately proved by the assessee by filing copies of ledger accounts to lower authorities. Accordingly, we observe that the addition of Rs. 10,54,270/- is not sustainable. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same and we do not find any infirmity in the action of Ld. CIT(A). Hence we dismiss Ground No. 2 of AY 2014-15. 7. Ground No. 3 relates to the addition of Rs. 2,27,03,010/- on account of unexplained cash-receipts. 7.1 The Ld. AO has made this addition by observing as under: Page 40 of order: “13.0 Undisclosed cash payments as mentioned in hand written cash book. 13.1 During the course of survey at premise at UPO-1 extremely incriminating documents were impounded which were inventoried as A-1 and A-2. These documents are of the nature of cash book. From the transactions appearing in the cash book it appears that the cash book has transactions relating of Real Estate business. 13.2 The scanned copy of page no. 30 of A-1 is reproduced as under: XXX (not being reproduced for the sake of brevity) As is evident from the form and content of the document A-1 and A-2, it is clear that both the document are cash books and are Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 7 of 15 prepared on day-to-day basis and transactions of real estate business are recorded in these cash books. Considering the fact that no explanation has been provided by the assesse on these cash book in which his name is also appearing hence, the total amount mentioned in the cash book relating to Shri JP Gupta is added to his total income. 13.4 The amount of cash received from Shri JP Gupta as per the cash books A-1 and A-2 is as under: XXX (not being reproduced for the sake of brevity) The table mentioned above consist of the page wise cash received in the cash book belonging to the assessee. 13.5 On the basis of the facts discussed in this part the amount of undisclosed income of Shri JP Gupta reflected in documents A-1 and A-2 impounded from premise 1 st Floor, Mayur Apartment, Near Kunj Bihari Mandir, Jhansi is as under: Impounded Document AY Amount A-1 2015-16 14850010 2016-17 3209800 A-2 2013-14 953605 2014-15 22703010 2015-16 1013899 13.6 Considering the above facts the following additions are made to the total income of respective assessment year as per the table below: AY Amount 2013-14 9,53,605/- 2014-15 2,27,03,010/- 2015-16 1,58,63,939/- 2016-17 32,09,800/- 7.2 During appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition by observing as under: Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 8 of 15 Page 37 of order: “8. Ground No 4 for A.Ys 2012-13 & AY 2013-14; Ground No. 3 for A.Y 2014-15; Ground No. 5 for A.Y. 2015-16 and Ground No 3 for AY 2016-17:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 68,40,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13, Rs. 9,53,605/- in AY 2013-14, Rs. 2,27,03,010/- in AY 2014-15, Rs. 1,58,63,939/- in AY 2015-16 and Rs. 32,09,800/- in AY 2016-17 on account of undisclosed receipts. The AO during assessment proceedings, found that two cash books A-1 and A-2 were found and impounded during survey at UPO-1. The relevant extract is scanned on page 40 & 41 of the assessment order. The accounting clerk recorded day-to-day transaction in the cash book. The accounting clerk used to prepare two copies. The transaction in these cash books are receipts. The undisclosed receipt of Rs. 68,40,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13, Rs. 9,53,605/- in AY 2013-14, Rs. 2,27,03,010/- in AY 2014-15, Rs. 1,58,63,939/- in AY 2015-16 and Rs. 32,09,800/- in AY 2016-17 has been recorded in the cash books. The A.O. considered the receipt and made the addition accordingly. Appellant during appellate proceedings submitted that the addition is based on seized document A-1 & A-2 which pertain to some firm that has left out its cash book in the office of M/s Gupta Jai & Co. Appellant has also submitted that no investment what so ever was made in these firms, infact these firm were client of M/s Gupta Jai & Co and the AO has made addition on assumption, presumption, conjectures and surmise. I have considered the facts of the case, plea raised by the appellant and assessment order. It is seen that seized cash book A-1 and A-2 have day-to-day transactions of some real estate builder and developer. Appellant is a Chartered Accountant by profession and not a builder/developer. Appellant during appellate proceedings filed affidavit in support of claim stating that cash book seized during search A-1, A-2 and A-8 belongs to M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd and M/s Shree Tawan Sarkar Developers Pvt Ltd. Further on 19.06.2018, appellant has filed affidavit of Mr Manish Rai, director of M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd and M/s Shree Tawan Sarkar Developers Pvt Ltd, stated that cash books seized A-1, A-2 and A-8 belongs to M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd and M/s Shree Tawan Sarkar Developers Pvt Ltd and the transaction mentioned in cash books are duly recorded in books of account of M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd and M/s Shree Tawan Sarkar Developers Pvt Ltd. A copy of these affidavits was forwarded to AO for his comments on 26.04.2018. The AO submitted Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 9 of 15 his remand report on 05.11.2018 which is placed on record. The AO has not specifically commented on the affidavits filed by appellant and Shri Manish Rai. Since the cash book A-1 and A-2 pertains to M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd & M/s Shree Tawan Sarkar Developers Pvt Ltd, therefore, all the transactions mentioned therein pertains to M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd & M/s Shree Tawan Sarkar Developers Pvt Ltd. Thus, the additions made by the AO on this account are deleted and the entries pertaining to cash book A-1, A-2 and A-8 have been taken into consideration while deciding the appeal in the case of M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd. The addition made in the case of M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd has been accordingly enhanced while taking into the consideration in respect of the entries in cash book A-1, A-2 and A-8. The entries in cash book A-1, A-2 and A-8 does not belongs to appellant, therefore, the addition of Rs. 68,40,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13, Rs. 9,53,605/- in AY 2013-14, Rs. 2,27,03,010/- in AY 2014-15, Rs. 1,58,63,939/- in AY 2015-16 and Rs. 32,09,800/- in AY 2016-17 are Deleted and appeal on this ground is Allowed. 7.3 Before us, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of Ld. AO. On the other hand, the Ld. AR relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the Written- Submission filed by her. Ld. AR further stressed that the impugned addition in the hands of assessee was made by Ld. AO on the basis of cash-books seized during search, marked as A-1 and A-2 (there is one more cash-book marked as A-8 but the same is not concerned with the assessee). Ld. AR submitted that A-1 and A-2 never belonged to the assessee, in fact they belonged to M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Private Limited. Ld. AR submitted that department has already assessed the same transactions, as found noted in A-1 and A-2, in the hands of M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Private Limited through enhancement done by CIT(A) in the appellate-proceeding of M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Private Limited. Ld. AR pointed out that M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Private Limited has also filed an appeal being ITA No. 30/Ind/2019 wherein a copy of the appeal-order of AY 2014-15 in which the Ld. CIT(A) enhanced income of M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Private Limited with respect to those transactions, is available. 7.4 We have considered the submission of both sides and perused the records. We observe that the assesssee has denied ownership of A-1 and A-2 Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 10 of 15 and also proved that those documents belonged to M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Private Limited. We also observe that in the appellate proceeding of M/s Vardhman Estate Private Limited, their CIT(A) has invoked his power of enhancement u/s 251(2) of the act and thereafter assessed the impugned transactions in the hands of M/s Vardhman Estate Private Limited in accordance with law. Taking note of the same, the Ld. CIT(A) has also concluded thus in first-appellate proceeding “Since the cash book A-1 and A- 2 pertains to M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd & M/s Shree Tawan Sarkar Developers Pvt Ltd, therefore, all the transactions mentioned therein pertains to M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd & M/s Shree Tawan Sarkar Developers Pvt Ltd. Thus, the additions made by the AO on this account are deleted and the entries pertaining to cash book A-1, A-2 and A-8 have been taken into consideration while deciding the appeal in the case of M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd. The addition made in the case of M/s Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt Ltd has been accordingly enhanced while taking into the consideration in respect of the entries in cash book A-1, A-2 and A-8. The entries in cash book A-1, A-2 and A-8 does not belongs to appellant, therefore, the addition of Rs. 68,40,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13, Rs. 9,53,605/- in AY 2013-14, Rs. 2,27,03,010/- in AY 2014-15, Rs. 1,58,63,939/- in AY 2015-16 and Rs. 32,09,800/- in AY 2016- 17 are Deleted”. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has carefully examined and observed that the transactions found in A-1 and A-2 have been adequately assessed in the hands of real earner of income, viz. M/s Vardhman Infra Estate (P) Ltd. There cannot be any quarrel with the settled principle that the income has to be assessed in the hands of real earner and in the present case, the income unearthed from A-1 and A-2 have already been assessed in lawful manner in the hands of real earner i.e M/s Vardhman Infra Estate (P) Ltd. Hence in such circumstances, the addition of Rs. 2,27,03,010/- made by Ld. AO in the assessee does not have legs to stand and the same was rightly deleted by Ld. CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the action of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 3 of AY 2014-15 is also dismissed. Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 11 of 15 ITA No. 35/Ind/2019 – A.Y. 2015-16: 8. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the detailed Remand Report sent by AO on 30/08/2018 and deciding the issues without calling for remand-report on specific issues as warranted by the OM dated 07/11/2014. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,70,000/- made AO on account of unexplained cash-payment for A.Y. 2015-16. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,58,63,939/- made by AO on account of undisclosed receipts for A.Y. 2015-16. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,250/-, Rs. 10,980/- and Rs. 3,28,100/- made by AO on account of unexplained cash payment for A.Y. 2015-16.” 9. Ground No. 1 is analogous to the Ground No. 1 of AY 2014-15 discussed above. Hence the reasoning made in the earlier paragraph shall apply mutadis mutandis and accordingly this Ground No. 1 is also dismissed. 10. Ground No. 2 relates to the addition of Rs. 5,70,000/- on account of unexplained cash-payment. This Ground is analogous to the Ground No. 2 of AY 2014-15 discussed above. Hence the reasoning made in the earlier paragraph shall apply mutadis mutandis and accordingly this Ground No. 2 of AY 2015-16 is also dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3 relates to the addition of Rs. 1,58,63,939/- made by AO on account of undisclosed receipts. This Ground is analogous to the Ground No. 3 of AY 2014-15 discussed above. Hence the reasoning made in the earlier paragraph shall apply mutadis mutandis and accordingly this Ground No. 3 of AY 2015-16 is also dismissed. Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 12 of 15 12. Ground No. 4 relates to the addition of Rs. 38,250/-, Rs. 10,980/- and Rs. 3,28,100/- on account of unexplained cash-payments. 12.1 The Ld. AO has made these additions by observing as under: Page 33 of order: “12.0 Unexplained Cash payment: 12.1 On the basis of impounded document from UPO-1, it has been found that Shri JP Gupta has made the various cash payments. In this part the cash payment made by Shri JP Gupta which are impounded in document LP-1 are discussed. 12.2 On going through page no. 14 it is seen that Shri JP Gupta has made cash payment to Hardcon Products for purchase of bricks. The scanned copy of documents is as under: XXX (not being reproduced for the sake of brevity) Considering the fact that Shri JP Gupta has not explained the above transactions hence, amount of Rs. 38,250/- is treated as unexplained cash payment made by Shri JP Gupta during AY 2015-16 as mentioned in the document page 14 of LP-1 and added to the total income of the assesse for AY 2015-16. 12.3 During the course of survey document Page 22 of LP-1 was impounded on going through the document it is found that amount of Rs. 10980/- is paid by Shri JP Gupta in cash. The scanned copy of the document is as under: XXX (not being reproduced for the sake of brevity) Considering the fact that Shri JP Gupta has not explained the above transactions hence, amount of Rs. 10,980/- is treated as unexplained cash payments made by Shri JP Gupta during AY 2015-16 as mentioned in the document page 22 of LP-1 and added to the total income of the assesse for AY 2015-16. 12.4 During the course of survey document Page 30 of LP-1 was impounded on going through the document it is found that in this document the transaction relating to cheque and cash hence, the document cannot be treated as dumb document. The scanned copy of the document is as under: XXX (not being reproduced for the sake of brevity) Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 13 of 15 In the middle part of the document it is mentioned that the opening balance of cash in hand is Rs. 1,64,17,500/- after the opening balance the amount of Rs. 3,28,100/- cash is received from Shri JP Gupta. On the document it is clearly mentioned that it pertains to project of Ambrosia Country. The Ambrosia County project is in the books of Vardhman Infra Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Smt. Rekha Gupta is one of the director of the company. Further, as mentioned before since the document has transactions of both cash and cheque hence, the document is a valid document. Further, since one of the director is wife of Shri JP Gupta hence, from the document and various facts discussed above it is clear that amount of cash of Rs. 3,28,100/- is given by the assesse Shri JP Gupta. Considering the fact that Shri JP Gupta has not explained the above transactions hence, amount of Rs. 3,28,100/- is treated as unexplained cash payments made by Shri JP Gupta during AY 2015-16 as mentioned in the document page 30 of LP-1 and added to the total income of the assesse for AY 2015-16.” 12.2 The addition of Rs. 38,250/- was made by Ld. AO on the premise that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 38,250/- in cash to Hardcon Products for purchase of bricks. During appellate proceeding, the assessee submitted to Ld. CIT(A) that the bill of Rs. 38,250/- was received after the close of the year and no payment was made in the current year. The assessee further submitted that the brick expenditure was a part of the building constructed by assessee and is duly recorded in accounts. These submissions of assessee were duly examined by Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter addition was deleted. We observe that not only the amount of addition is meagre, but also the assessee has given sufficient explanation to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) was satisfied. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the action of Ld. CIT(A). 12.3 The addition of Rs. 10,980/- and Rs. 3,28,100/- were made by Ld. AO on the basis of certain loose papers marked as “Page No. 22 of LP-1” and “Page No. 30 of LP-1” respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and observed that these documents are “dumb documents”. Relying upon certain judicial precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) has concluded that no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document. We are in agreement Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 14 of 15 with the Ld. CIT(A) to the point that no addition can legally be made on the basis of dumb documents. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting these additions. 12.4 In view of above, we also dismiss the Ground No. 4 of AY 2015-16. 13. In the final result, both appeals of revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963 on 29/07/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore दनांक /Dated : 29.07.2022 Patel/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 Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Shri J.P. Gupta IT(SS)A No.34 & 35/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 15 of 15 1. Date of taking dictation 2. Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 7. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 8. Date of dispatch of the Order