The ACIT Central, Ujjain V. Smt Radhika Bandi , Bhopal

ITSSA 5/Ind/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5519 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Corroborative evidences; Notional interest; Retraction; Condonation of delay
• Section: 68; 132; 43B; 143(3); 153A; 69B; 250; 139(1); 43; 13; 22

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 42 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 No. 06/Ind/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, (Central), Ujjain [stationed at Indore] बनाम/ Vs. M/s. Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, 11/2, Old Palasia, Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) PAN: AADCG3040N IT(SS)A No. 04/Ind/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, (Central), Ujjain [stationed at Indore] बनाम/ Vs. Dr. Anil Bandi, 4, Ladh Colny, Y. N. Road, Indore. (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) PAN: ACFPB4784K IT(SS)A No. 05/Ind/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, (Central), Ujjain [stationed at Indore] बनाम/ Vs. Dr. Radhika Bandi, 11/2, Old Palasia, Indore. (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) PAN: ABHPB5304L Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, C.A. & AR Date of He aring 18.05.2023 / 18.08.2023 Date of Pronoun ce me nt 07.11.2023 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 2 of 42 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: 1. The captioned three appeals are filed by revenue in the matters of three different assessees, forming part of a common search u/s 132. In these appeals, the revenue is impugning three separate appeal-orders, one in each assessee, all dated 08.11.2021 and all passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”]. Those impugned orders arise out of respective assessment-orders, all dated 31.12.2018 and all passed by learned ACIT, (Central), Ujjain, stationed at Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017- 18. 2. Since the assessees are closely connected and form part of a common search u/s 132 undertaken by revenue authorities upon all of them, described together as “Greater Kailash Hospital Group” and the most prominent issue involved in all appeals is same; therefore these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. It is agreed by both sides that the assessee “M/s Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited” can be treated as a lead-case and its appeal must be decided first and thereafter other appeals. We proceed as requested by parties. IT(SS)A No. 6/Ind/2022 - M/s Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited: 3. Brief facts are such that a search u/s 132 was conducted on 06.12.2016, pursuant to which assessments of AY 2011-12 to 2016-17 were framed u/s 153A and AY 2017-18 was framed u/s 143(3). The present appeal relates to AY 2017-18 for which the assessee filed return declaring a total income of (-) Rs. 2,57,91,917/- including undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- admitted/surrendered by assessee during search u/s 132(4). While framing assessment, the AO made two adjustments, namely (i) he Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 3 of 42 assessed the undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- u/s 68 read with section 115BBE instead of ‘normal income’ as declared by assessee in return, and (ii) he made a further addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of notional interest income. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal. During first-appeal, the assessee claimed that the income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- had been wrongly taxed by AO; therefore the same ought to be excluded from taxation. Further, the assessee also claimed that the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- had been wrongly made by AO and deserved to be deleted. Ld. CIT(A) allowed both claims of assessee. Aggrieved by order of CIT(A), the revenue has come in this appeal before us on following grounds: Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 4 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 5 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 6 of 42 4. Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the last Ground No. 14 is general in nature and no adjudication is required. Out of remaining 13 grounds, Ground No. 1 to 10 involve 1 st issue of undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- and Ground No. 11 to 13 involve 2 nd issue of addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Accordingly, the grounds can be grouped and adjudicated. Ground No. 1 to 10: 5. In these grounds, the revenue precisely claims that the CIT(A) has erred in excluding the income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- from total income which was rightly assessed by AO in terms of section 68 r/w section 115BBE. 6. Ld. DR for revenue explained the facts of this issue in precise terms. He submitted that the assessee-company and its directors (Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandhi) are engaged in medical business/profession. After declaration of demonetization by Govt. of India, the assessee-company and directors made a total cash-deposit of Rs. 6,11,56,500/- in demonetized currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 on a single day of 15.11.2016 in their respective bank accounts. During search u/s 132 on 06.12.2016, while recording statements of directors of assessee-company u/s 132(4) when the authorities interrogated them about source of deposit, the director Dr. Anil Bandi stated (and another director Dr. Radhika Bandhi agreed to the statements of Dr. Anil Bandi) sources of deposit partly and admitted/surrendered remaining amounts as having been made from undisclosed income (Q.No. 7 and 11 of statements). The relevant figures are: Assessee Total deposit Explained source Admitted as undisclosed income M/s Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited 2,65,00,000/- 36,00,000/- 2,29,00,000/- Dr. Anil Bandi 1,15,00,500/- 13,50,000/- 1,01,50,000/- Dr. Radhika Bandi 1,73,56,000/- 12,00,000/- 1,61,50,000/- Anil Bandi HUF 58,00,000/- -- 58,00,000/- Total 6,11,56,500/- 61,50,000/- 5,50,00,000/- Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 7 of 42 Thereafter, all assessees declared undisclosed incomes as admitted in their respective returns filed in response to notices u/s 153A; the assessee- company too declared admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- in its return and the AO assessed same in assessment-order as under: “5.1 The return for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 30.10.2017 u/s 139(1) declaring total income at Rs. (-)2,57,91,917/- including undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/-, which was admitted as undisclosed income u/s 132(4) of the Act. It has been contended by the assessee that the undisclosed income was in the nature of income earned through medical profession. However, no evidence in support of the same could be put forth by the assessee. It is well settled that whoever makes the assertion, must substantiate it. Here, the assessee has failed to prove its theory. It is, therefore, clear that the undisclosed income was unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the same is added to the total income for the assessment year 2017-18 as per provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessee has not offered explanation about the nature and source of the above income; therefore, tax is calculated as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The manner in which the undisclosed income earned was not disclosed during the search proceedings u/s 132(4) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act, I am satisfied that penalty proceedings must be initiated for the amount of disclosure made u/s 132(4) of the Act. Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are hereby initiated for assessment year 2017-18.” 7. Thus, the AO assessed the income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- as declared by assessee in its return but, however, with a limited modification i.e. while the assessee declared impugned income as “Income from medical business/ profession”, the AO characterized it as income u/s 68 read with section 115BBE because the assessee was unable to put forth any evidence in support of income from medical business/profession. However, during first- appeal before CIT(A), the assessee made an altogether different claim that the impugned income was not assessable at all and the same must be excluded from total income. The CIT(A) allowed assessee’s claim by passing following order: Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 8 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 9 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 10 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 11 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 12 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 13 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 14 of 42 8. After explaining background of issue, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the department is strongly against the relief given by CIT(A) to assessee by upsetting the entire case. Ld. DR strongly supported the order of AO and opposed the order of CIT(A). He requested to uphold AO’s order on following contentions: (i) Referring to revenue’s plea in Ground No. 3 and 4, Ld. DR submitted that in the statements recorded by authorities u/s 132(4), the assessee himself admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/-. Thereafter, the assessee himself declared the said income in its return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A. Thereafter, the AO assessed what was already declared by assessee in return of income. The AO only made a limited modification that he re-characterized the impugned income as income u/s 68 against assessee’s claim of business income and that too for the reason that the assessee could not submit any evidence to establish as having earned from medical business/profession. Ld. DR submitted that the AO has not made any addition or not assessed any newer income from his side; he assessed only that income which was already there in the return of income. Ld. AR submitted that the controversy between AO and Assessee could at best be for re-characterisation of income but certainly there was no dispute with regard to the existence of impugned income. Therefore, the CIT(A) is grossly wrong in excluding impugned income from total income and thereby giving relief to assessee even when no such grievance flowed from assessment-order. (ii) Referring to revenue’s plea in Ground No. 1, 2 and 6, Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has accepted assessee’s fresh claim for exclusion of income although the assessee never made such a claim/ contention before AO. Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) not only accepted asessee’s fresh claim but also the stand of assessee without confronting AO, without inviting AO’s stand and without giving any Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 15 of 42 opportunity to AO in terms of Rule 46A; therefore the CIT(A)’s action is absolutely illegal. (iii) Referring to revenue’s plea in Ground No. 5, Ld. DR submitted that the assessee admitted undisclosed income during search on 06.12.2016 and thereafter declared the same in the return filed on 30.10.2017. Therefore, the assessee had a sufficient time of about 10 months and if the assessee had any objection of coercive surrender or pressure during search, the assessee could very well file some retraction/complaint to higher authorities which was not at all done. And even if that is not done, which though cannot be excused, the assessee might not have declared the impugned income in return of income. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee declared impugned income in return following the surrender made by him; then in such situation the claim of exclusion before CIT(A) is an after-thought only which must have been rejected by CIT(A). (iv) Referring to revenue’s plea in Ground No. 8, Ld. DR strongly contended that the action of CIT(A) is even against the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banna Lal Jat Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2019) 106 taxmann.com 128 (SC). 9. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee strongly supported the order of CIT(A) and urged to uphold the same on following contentions: (i) He submitted that the impugned income did not have any backing of corroborative evidence, it was solely on the basis of statement made during search, which is not sustainable as per various court decisions. (ii) He submitted that during search, there was a force and pressure upon assessee’s director and family members, which is narrated in Para 1.4.2/Page 246 of Written-Synopsis and the same was also submitted to CIT(A) which is noted on Page No. 43 of order of CIT(A). He drew us Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 16 of 42 to Page 53 of Paper-Book and submitted that in the “Computation of Total Income” filed to AO, the assessee has given a “note” to the effect that the deposit of Rs. 2.65 crore was made out of cash in hand available in assessee’s regular books on 08.11.2016 but due to high handedness and great pressure by search officials, the directors were forced to surrender at least 90% of the amount deposited in Bank A/c. It is further mentioned in the said note “To avoid litigation and penal proceedings, income surrendered during search (though explained from regular books of accounts), is being offered to tax in the computation of income.” He also drew us to Page 114-115 of Paper-Book to show that in the letter dated 22.11.2018 filed during assessment-proceeding, the assessee re-iterated those very submissions to AO. Thus, Ld. AR submitted, the assessee included impugned income in the ‘return of income’ on the basis of surrender and to avoid litigation, although there was no actual/additional income with assessee and for that reason the assessee has not passed any entry of undisclosed income or undisclosed asset in books of account. (iii) He submitted that the assessee has not filed any ‘new or additional evidence’ before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has given relief on mere appreciation of documents already held on record; therefore there is no violation of Rule 46A and no opportunity was required to be given to AO. According to him, the CIT(A) is very much within his limit in accepting claim of assessee. (iv) He relied upon CBDT Circular No. 14 dated 11.04.1955 wherein the CBDT has directed the officers of department for not taking advantage of ignorance of assessee. (v) He relied upon plethora of decisions mentioned in his Written- Submission where it has been accepted that even if the assessee has included some asset in wealth-tax return or income in income-tax return but the same is not taxable as per law, the assessee can very Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 17 of 42 well claim exclusion of same at a later stage. Some decisions are also to the effect that no addition can be made on the basis of mere statement taken during search or the statement taken at odd times or under exercise of pressure cannot be taken as evidence for assessment of income. A few decisions to which our attention is drawn during hearing, are already mentioned by CIT(A) in his order. (vi) Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that AO has himself made an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of notional interest income (this addition is also under challenge in this appeal and it shall be discussed in later part of this order) on the footing that the assessee was maintaining huge cash balance. By doing so, the AO has himself given consent to the very submission of assessee that the assessee had sufficient cash balance to make deposit in bank a/c. 10. In rejoinder, Ld. DR made following submissions: (i) The allegation of force or duress is without any basis, it is a lame excuse claimed by assessee. The statements of assessee had been recorded u/s 132(4) in presence of two witnesses who have also signed in addition to assessee on last page of statements and it is clearly acknowledged that the statements were read over and understood and they were without any force. Further, the assessee has not shown any iota of evidence to demonstrate exercise of any force. (ii) He drew us to Q.No. 4 of statement recorded u/s 132(4) where the assessee accepted to have made a cash deposit of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- in bank a/c. He drew us to Q.No. 7, where the assessee stated to have made withdrawal of Rs. 36,00,000/- from Bank A/c. It is after such statements that the assessee accepted to have earned the ‘undisclosed income’ of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- not recorded in books of account and agreed to disclose the same in return and pay tax. Yet again in Q.No. 11, the assessee admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/-. Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 18 of 42 Ld. DR submitted that the undisclosed income of Rs. 2,29,00,000/- is exactly and correctly admitted by assessee based on difference of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- (the amount deposited in bank) and Rs. 36,00,000/- (the source of deposit). Therefore, the very claim of assessee is that there was a force to surrender at least ‘90% of the amount deposited in Bank A/c’ and that is why assessee made surrender of Rs. 2,29,00,000/-, is an after-thought, totally wrong and far from truth. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was very pretty sure that he is able to explain only part-amount and that is why admitted the remaining amount and declared in return. 11. In counter-reply to Ld. DR’s rejoinder, Ld. AR submitted that the withdrawal of Rs. 36,00,000/- explained by assessee in reply to Q.No. 7 is the amount of withdrawal from Oct. 2016 to 08.11.2016 only whereas the assessee’s director stated in reply to Q.No. 5 that the assessee made deposit in Bank A/c out of opening cash-balance as on 01.04.2016 (+) further withdrawals made from Bank A/c from time to time after 01.04.2016 till 08.11.2016. He also submitted that in the very next Q.No. 6, when the search-authorities asked assessee for justification of cash-withdrawals from Bank A/c despite having cash-balance, the director of assessee-company replied that for expansion of hospital, the negotiations for purchase of nearby building known as “G.D. Eureka Hospital” were going on. Hence cash was withdrawn from bank accounts of assessee-company as well as directors. However, the said building could not be purchased and ultimately the assessee-company took the same building on rent vide agreement dated 28.10.2016. Therefore, there remained unutilized cash balance which was re-deposited in Bank A/c on 15.11.2016. 12. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as also the documents placed in the Paper-Book to which our attention has been drawn. There is no quarrel with the propositions held in judicial rulings (i) that the AO cannot make any Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 19 of 42 addition on the basis of mere surrender/admission in statement by assessee where the assessee is able to make successful retraction; (ii) that even if the assessee has included any income in return which is exempted/non-taxable in the eyes of law or any statutory deduction/relief remained unallowed to assessee in assessment, the appellate authorities can entertain such legal claims of assessee, etc. But the present case involves a different, typical and peculiar, too some extent a unique, controversy. Normally, what happens that during search/survey proceedings, the assessees make surrender but if they find the surrender unacceptable, they make retraction after completion of search/survey and ultimately they do not declare surrendered income in return of income, thereafter the AO makes addition in assessment and then litigation starts between revenue and assessee. But, in present case, the position is like this (i) assessee admitted/surrendered undisclosed income at first in search before two witnesses; (ii) post-search the assessee did not make any retraction/complaint to higher authorities; (iii) then the assessee himself declared exactly same amount of admitted income in return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A; (iv) during assessment- proceeding before AO, the assessee nowhere retracted/objected to assessment of income; the assessee only tried to explain the nature of income as coming from medical business/profession which the AO did not accept; (v) therefore, the AO assessed the same income as declared by assessee in return and the only modification done by AO was re- characterisation of nature of income. Thus, right from search-action till completion of assessment, the assessee had no objection, rather the assessee himself admitted, acknowledged and declared the impugned income in the statutory return filed u/s 153A. It is only in first-appeal that the assessee sought exclusion of income and the CIT(A) accepted assessee’s claim. Now, the question is whether the relief given by CIT(A) is in order or not? Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 20 of 42 13. At first, we look into the decision of Hon’ble apex court in Banna Lal Jat Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2019) 106 taxmann.com 128 (SC). A passage from the decision is re-produced below: 20. .... We may in this connection refer to earliest judgment of the Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., (supra) wherein it was held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can't be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person, who made admission to show that it is incorrect. The assessee should be given proper opportunity to show the correct state of affairs. The law with regard to this has developed much thereafter. There is no gainsay the fact that admission made during the search can be disputed by the assessee and at the same time however it is equally well settled that the statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of assessment. Mere fact that the assessee retracted the statement at later point of time could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by a strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was recorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definite evidence to come to the conclusion that indicating that there was an element of compulsion for assessee to make such statement. However, a bald assertion to this effect at much belated stage cannot be accepted. The assessee indulged in maintaining transaction on diaries and loose papers which was not permissible in any of the method of accounting. The assessee, while filing the return of income, has not disclosed any undisclosed income and hence, retracted from the admission made by him during the course of search. Subsequent retraction from the surrender without having evidence or proof of retraction is not permissible in the eyes of law. The statement recorded during the course of search action which was in presence of independent witnesses has overriding effect over the subsequent retraction.” 14. In the aforesaid case of Banna Lal, the assessee admitted undisclosed income in the statement u/s 132(4) but did not include such income in the return of income filed to Income-tax Department. Instead, the assessee made a retraction before authorities. While completing assessment, the AO included the undisclosed income. The assessee contested AO’s order and matter travelled to Hon’ble Supreme Court. While deciding, the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt the assessee’s case very strongly and concluded thus “Subsequent retraction from the surrender without having evidence or proof of retraction is not permissible in the eyes of law. The statement recorded during the course of search action which was in presence of independent witnesses has overriding effect over the subsequent retraction”. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is pretty hard in accepting retraction even. In the present appeal, the Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 21 of 42 assessee has admitted undisclosed income in the statements recorded in presence of two witnesses u/s 132(4) with a clear acceptance that no force was exercised upon it. Even after completion of search, the assessee did not make any retraction/complaint to authorities. The matter does not stop here. Even in the return of income filed to tax department, the assessee himself included the impugned income. Even during assessment-proceeding undertaken by AO u/s 143(3), the assessee neither objected to inclusion of income nor made any claim for exclusion of impugned income before AO; the assessee only claimed that the impugned income was income from medical business/profession. Thus, the AO assessed only that income which was already admitted, offered and included by assessee in return of income. Clearly, the assessee’s case is more worse than Banna Lal’s case. In fact, the present assessee has no grievance till finalisation of assessment by AO. When it is so, how the assessee could claim exclusion before CIT(A) and how the CIT(A) could allow the same, is beyond our understanding. 15. At this stage, we may also mention that in the note narrated in “Computation of Total Income” at Page No. 53 of Paper-Book, the assessee has mentioned thus: “To avoid litigation and penal proceedings, income surrendered during search (though explained from regular books of accounts), is being offered to tax in the computation of income.” Similarly, in the letter dated 22.11.2018 filed during assessment- proceeding, the assessee made following submission to AO: “There was no justified reason to surrender such availability of cash in hand having source of hospital income carried on by the company yet just to avoid litigation and penal proceedings, such income was surrendered. The source of deposit i.e. the manner in which such cash was available with the company was also explained as income earned by hospital in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 09.12.2016. As the source was categorically stated in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) i.e. the income from hospital only, while submitting the return, though company intended to retract the surrender so made under pressure but to avoid prolonged litigations due to delay occurred, instead of retracting the income surrendered during search, (though cash in hand was explained from regular books of accounts), the same has Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 22 of 42 been offered for tax while submitting return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 under the head ‘Income from Business’. Thus, even in the Computation of Total Income as well as letter dated 22.11.2018, the assessee has clearly accepted that the impugned income was included in return of income to avoid ‘litigation’ or ‘prolonged litigation’. This, at least, clearly shows that it was a careful and conscious decision of assessee to include income in return to avoid litigation for ever. When it is so, we fail to understand why the assessee has started litigation in first- appeal before CIT(A)? There is a clear dichotomy in assessee’s stand. Therefore, we do not appreciate the litigation raised by assessee before appellate forums. 16. At this stage, we also find one more instance of this very assessee playing the same strategy, dealt by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore in ITA No. 628/Ind/2019, order dated 10.02.2023 for AY 2013-14. In that case, a survey was conducted in past upon this very assessee wherein the assessee surrendered income of Rs. 5,83,25,000/-. Thereafter, in the return of income, the assessee included such income. The AO completed assessment after making some more additions/disallowances apart from assessing the undisclosed income already offered by assessee. The assessee allowed the AO to complete assessment. Then, the assessee went in first- appeal to contest only newer additions/disallowances made by AO but the assessee did not have any objection qua the undisclosed income. After finalisation of first-appeal, the assessee came to ITAT in a belated-appeal and requested to allow withdrawal of ‘undisclosed income’ by filing additional grounds. The ITAT dismissed assessee’s appeal; the order of ITAT is re-produced below: “3. The ld. Representative of the assessee (ld. AR), drawing our attention towards the affidavit of Dr. Anil Bandi sworn on 23.05.2019, submitted that the assessee company had filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 declaring the total income of Rs.5,83,25,000/- on account of additional income as offered during the course of survey even though cash as available in the books of account duly justified the source of amount as advanced and, therefore, no corresponding entry was passed in respect of Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 23 of 42 such additional income in the books of account of the assessee. The ld. AR further explained that subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 15.02.2016 after making additions of Rs.13,23,104 viz., addition of Rs.6,22,252/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and Rs.7,00,852/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act. From the said affidavit, the ld. AR also submitted that the assessee company as per Form No.35, challenged the addition of Rs.7,00,852/- made to the total income of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) which was deleted by the ld. First appellate authority, vide order dated 24.09.2018. 4. The ld. AR further explained that during the course of appeal as filed against the order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, it was explained to the assessee that additional income to the tune of Rs. 5,83,25,000/- was offered to tax in the return of income for AY 2013-14 even though no corresponding entry for the same was passed in the books of account of the company since source of amount as advanced was duly explained from the cash as available in the regular books of account of the company. Hence, it was advised to file an appeal before the Tribunal at the earliest without any further delay. The ld. AR further explained that due to this reason the present appeal has been filed belatedly by 156 days. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be admitted for hearing. 5. Apropos the application for admission of new/additional grounds of appeal, the ld. AR submitted that all the four grounds raised in the revised form No.36 are additional grounds as the same were never agitated before the ld. CIT(A) in Form No.35. Therefore, the said four grounds as mentioned in revised Form No. 36 dated 15.11.2022 may kindly be admitted for hearing and consideration as per the proposition rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (1998) 97 taxman 358 (SC). 6. Replying to the above, the ld. Sr. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay and admission of new/additional grounds of appeal for AY 2013-14. 7. Drawing our attention to the relevant assessment order for AY 2013-14 dated 15.02.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee himself filed the return of income on 30.03.2013 declaring the taxable income at Rs.5,83,25,000/- and the case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. The ld. DR further submitted that as per concluding para 8 of the said assessment order, it is clear that the AO accepted the return of income and made two additions only viz., addition of Rs. 6,22,252/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and Rs.7,00,852/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act. The ld. Sr. DR further drew our attention towards Form No.35 filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.03.2016 and submitted that the assessee has raised the sole ground challenging the addition made by the AO of Rs. 7,00,852/- and no other ground has been agitated or raised before the ld. CIT(A). Further drawing our attention towards the impugned first appellate order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Indore, dated 24.09.2018, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the sole ground of the assessee challenging the addition of Rs.7,00,852/- Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 24 of 42 was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition and no grievance of the assessee was left to be agitated before the ITAT. Further drawing our attention towards new/additional grounds of the assessee placed in the revised form No. 36 dated 15.11.2022, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that these grounds of the assessee were not raised before the ld. CIT(A) and were not an issue before the AO during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the AO made two additions out of which the assessee accepted the first addition of Rs.6,22,252/- without disputing the same before the ld. CIT(A) and raised the sole ground challenging the addition of Rs.7,00,852/- and the said sole grievance of the assessee was allowed by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, when no grievance was there of the assessee, then, the appeal filed belatedly by 156 days and new/additional grounds of appeal should not be admitted and considered for adjudication. The ld. Sr. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay as well as admission of new/ additional grounds of the assessee and submitted that first of all the appeal is not maintainable as no grievance of the assessee has been left unadjudicated or unaddressed at the level of the ld. CIT(A) and, secondly, the assessee has filed the appeal late by 156 days without any substantial reason and it has failed to substantiate sufficient and plausible cause for such delay of 156 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. He also drew our attention to para 2.6 of condonation application and affidavit and submitted that the cause stated explaining the delay is not a sufficient and plausible cause and the assessee has failed to substantiate any proper explanation and sufficient cause to explain delay of 156 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, condonation of delay is not permissible and allowable. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee may kindly be dismissed in limine without admission. 8. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, first of all we are in agreement with the allegation of the ld. Sr. DR that the AO has made two additions in the assessment order dated 15.02.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2013-14 and the assessee only agitated or challenged the sole addition of Rs.7,00,852/- before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) allowed the sole ground of the assessee deleting the said addition and, thus, there was no issue or ground for the assessee left unadjudicated to agitate before this Tribunal against order of CIT(A) dated 24.09.2018 for AY 2013-14. 9. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has prayed that the additional grounds of the assessee were not agitated before the ld. CIT(A), but, subsequently as advised by the tax consultant thus the same are being raised first time before the Tribunal. Therefore, the same may kindly be admitted for adjudication and the matter be restored to the file of the AO for examination and verification. 10. Now, we proceed to adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay of 156 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard, in para 2.6 of the application/affidavit it has been mentioned as under:- “2.6. However, during the course of appeal as filed against the order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, it was explained that additional income to the tune of Rs. 5,83,25,000/- was offered for tax in the return of total income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 even Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 25 of 42 though no corresponding entry for the same was passed in the books of accounts of the company since the source of amount as advanced was duly explained from the cash as available in the regular books of accounts of the company. Hence, it was advised to file an appeal before the Hon’ble Bench at the earliest without any further delay. It was for this reason that the present appeal is being filed late.” 11. On careful consideration of the reason and cause shown by the assessee for filing this appeal late by 156 days, we are of the considered view that the advise of tax consultant/advocate in another case while filing the appeal against the order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act cannot be a basis for filing the appeal late by 156 days. In the case Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs Mst. Katiji & Ors, judgement dated 19 February, 1987, reported in 1987 AIR 1353 their Lordships, speaking for the Hon’ble Supreme Court, categorically held that the onus is on the assessee to explain by way of sufficient and plausible cause the delay in filing the appeal. In our humble understanding, the said cause shown by the assessee in para 2.6 of the application is not a sufficient and plausible cause for the delay of 156 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We are not hearing appeal against order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and it is also not clear that said assessment order was related or pertained to which assessment year. Thus, we safely hold that the cause shown by the assessee is not only insufficient but also implausible cause based irrelevant facts. Therefore, we decline to condone the delay of 156 days in filing the appeal. 12. So far as the admission of new/additional ground of the assessee and restoring the same for adjudication to the file of the AO is concerned, we are in agreement with the said prayer of the ld. AR as we are hearing the appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Indore dated 24.09.2018. The said first appeal was filed by the assessee agitating the sole ground before the ld. CIT(A) which was allowed by the ld. First appellate authority by impugned order by the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 and thus, no grievance of the assessee was left unadjudicated at the level of the ld. CIT(A). As per the provisions of section 250 of the Act, the assessee is entitled to file appeal before the ld. CIT(A) agitating the additions/disallowances made by the AO in the assessment order and, in the present case, the assessee availed this opportunity and filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) raising the sole ground of disallowance of Rs.7,00,852/- which was allowed by the ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 24.09.2018 and no grievance of the assessee was left unaddressed after the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Indore dated 24.09.2018. 13. In the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: ‘the power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is, thus, expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of assessment proceedings before taxing authorities is to assess correctly tax liability of as assessee in accordance with the law........ Then, the additional ground which goes to the root of the matter can be adjudicated without any extraneous material on the basis of the material already available on record and the same may be admitted for adjudication as additional ground.’ But, in the present case, the assessee is seeking admission of additional ground and restoration of the same to the file of the AO for examination, verification and Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 26 of 42 adjudication. Therefore, as per the prayer of the assessee itself, these grounds cannot be adjudicated by the Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record as per the prayer of the assessee itself. At the same time, we may also point out that the ground No. 4 of the assessee has been added by way of filing revised form No.36 on 15.11.2022 and this ground was not placed in the original Form No.36 dated 21.05.2019. In our humble understanding when the assessee has not chosen to agitate issue of addition of Rs. 6,22,252/- made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) which was clearly discernible from the assessment order, then, the same cannot be raised or agitated before the Tribunal as an additional ground by way of revised Form No.36 as ground No.4. So far as issue of admission of additional grounds No.1 to 3 are concerned, neither from the assessment order dated 15.02.2016 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act nor from the first appellate order of ld. CIT(A) dated 24.09.2018, we are unable to see any action, addition, disallowance or enhancement by the authorities below so far to validly enable the assessee to raise the same before this Tribunal as additional grounds, seeking the restoration of the same to the file of the AO for adjudication. 14. Furthermore, so far as ground No.1, 2 and 3 are concerned, the grievance of the assessee pertaining to these grounds is neither discernible from the assessment order nor from the first appellate order. On careful perusal of the assessment as well as the first appellate orders, we find that the AO has accepted the returned income of Rs.5,83,25,000/- and has made only two additions, totaling to Rs.13,23,104/-. Therefore, the assessee, by way of raising new/additional ground cannot be allowed to retract or revise its returned income without filing retraction application and revised return of income within prescribed time limit in the garb of irrelevant new/additional grounds, that too in a non-maintainable being time barred appeal, which has been declared by the assessee in the return of income for AY 2013-14 itself and accepted by the AO. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the additional grounds of the assessee cannot be admitted for hearing and the same cannot be restored to the file of the AO for verification, examination and adjudication, especially when from assessment order dated 15.02.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and first appellate order dated 24.09.2018, it is clearly discernible that there was no such issue either before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A) for their consideration and adjudication. 15. Therefore, the application of the assessee for condonation of delay of 156 days and admission of new/additional grounds No.1 to 4 are dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is dismissed in limine.” Apparently, one may say that the ITAT did not condone the delay and dismissed appeal on belated-filing ground. That is true but a careful reading of Para No. 14 of order clearly demonstrates that the ITAT also observed that the grievance of the assessee pertaining to the grounds was neither discernible from assessment-order (nor from order of first appellate Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 27 of 42 authority because of specific situation of that case). The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT noted that in assessment-order, the AO has accepted the returned income of Rs. 5,83,25,000/- and has made only two additions, totalling to Rs.13,23,104/-. Therefore, the assessee, by way of raising new/additional ground cannot be allowed to retract or revise its returned income without filing retraction-application and revised return of income within prescribed time limit. Further observed that when the assessment-order was passed there was no such issue before the AO. Therefore, the fundamental point in that case is same as in present case before us. Even otherwise, one can also notice that the story in that case is identical to present case before us. In that case also, the assessee surrendered income during survey; declared in return; allowed AO to complete assessment; and thereafter attempted to make withdrawal of income broadly on similar grounds/pleas as in the present case before appellate forum. This shows that the assessee-group is resorting to same practice i.e. making surrenders before search/survey teams; then disclosing income in return, maintaining silence till completion of assessment, thus stopping AO from making further probe; and ultimately attempting before judicial forums to get out of ‘undisclosed income’. We are not inclined to accept this kind of strategy. Needless to mention that the case of assessee does not involve any issue like exempted/non-taxable income wrongly assessed by AO or any statutory deduction/relief available to assessee remained unclaimed before AO; the case is very much different in which not only the assessee is trying to undo his own action but also dislodge the entire action/adjudication done undertaken by search- authorities as well as AO. 17. We would also like to make one more mention that the CIT(A)’s order is also suffering from a basic and grave fallacy. In the grounds raised by revenue, it is strongly claimed that the CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee’s claim of withdrawal of surrender without confronting AO. We find that the CIT(A) must have, before overturning AO’s order on a significant Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 28 of 42 issue, at least confronted the AO. Since it was not done, there is a clear case of wrong adjudication by CIT(A). 18. For the aforesaid reasoning sufficiently noted by us in foregoing discussion, we need not go further. Suffice it to say that we are inclined to uphold the order of AO and reverse the order of CIT(A). Ordered accordingly. Thus, the grounds of revenue, are allowed. Ground No. 11 to 13: 19. In these grounds, the revenue precisely claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by AO on account of notional interest income. 20. On perusal of assessment-order, it is found that the AO has made this addition for notional/hypothetical income of interest. The CIT(A) has, however, deleted addition, in Para No. 4.2.6 of appeal-order, by observing that the AO is not justified in bringing notional/hypothetical income to tax which was never earned by assessee. We agree with the view taken by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, these grounds are dismissed. IT(SS)A No. 4/Ind/2022 – Dr. Anil Bandi: 21. The grounds raised in this appeal are as under: Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 29 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 30 of 42 11. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made of Rs. 3,00,000/- in doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has completely ignored the findings made during the assessment proceedings by AO. Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 31 of 42 Ground No. 1 to 7 and 9: 22. In these grounds, the revenue precisely claims that the CIT(A) has erred in excluding the income of Rs. 1,01,50,000/- from total income which was rightly assessed by AO in terms of section 68 read with section 115BBE. 23. Ld. Representatives of both sides agree that this issue and the underlying facts are identical to the issue involved in Ground No. 1 to 10 of IT(SS)A No. 6/Ind/2022 - M/s Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited. Therefore, no separate submissions are made during hearing. Being so, our adjudication in earlier part of this order shall apply mutatis mutandis. Applying same, these grounds of revenue are allowed. Ground No. 8: 24. In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in accepting the plea of assessee regarding source of excess jewellery found and seized during search. From perusal of assessment order and CIT(A)’s order, no such issue is found to be involved in assessee’s case. It appears that this ground has been wrongly copied from grounds raised in Dr. Radhika Bandi’s case. Therefore, this ground is taken as infructuous and dismissed. Ground No. 10 to 11: 25. In these grounds, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- made by AO u/s 69B on account of unexplained investment. 26. Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the AO has made this addition in Para 8 of assessment-order on the basis of Page No. 5 to 5B of LPS-1 seized during search. The seized papers are in the nature of an acknowledgement given by M/s SPS Jewellers acknowledging receipt of a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- having been taken on 27.02.2017. Another document is an Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 32 of 42 undated cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- issued by M/s SPS Jewellers as security for loan. From these papers, the AO inferred that the assessee had made a cash loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to M/s SPS Jewellers. When the AO show- caused assessee to explain source, the assessee replied that these papers did not belong to him or any family member. The assessee further submitted that these papers were left by some patient in hospital and they were kept by assessee in safe custody for return to owner on demand. However, the AO was not satisfied with submission of assessee and made addition. Ld. DR supported AO’s action and prayed to uphold the addition. 27. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the copies of seized documents placed in Paper-Book at Page No. 85 and 86 and successfully demonstrated that both of the documents are blank and do not contain any detail as to the name in whose favour they were issued by M/s SPS Jewellers. The AO has wrongly and on presumption basis, attributed those documents to assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the AO has disbelieved assessee’s factual submission that those documents were left by some patient in hospital and made addition. Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly given credence to assessee’s submission and deleted addition; his order must be upheld. 28. We have considered submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities. We find that the CIT(A) has passed following order while deleting addition: “4.4.2 I have considered the facts of the case, plea raised by the appellant before me as well as before AO has contended that the AO has invoked provisions of section 69B of the Act which can be invoked when any assessee has made investment and is found in possession of any bullion, jewellery or other valuation articles only then the amount of investment shall be treated as deemed income of the assessee, however, in the instant case no such bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles was found in possession of the appellant. The appellant has also filed copy of the seized loose paper i.e. page no. 5 of LPS-I which is blank undated cheque of Bank of Baroda, Shitlamata Branch, Indore, of Rs. 3,00,000/- issued by M/s. SPS Jewellers. Further, page no. 5A of LPS-I is an acknowledgement slip of receipt of sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- which is also not in the name of appellant. Neither the appellant nor M/s. SPS Jewellers has ever admitted for execution of any such transaction. Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 33 of 42 Nevertheless, the AO has not even bothered to make any enquiry from M/s. SPS Jewellers even when the AO is in possession of bank details and complete address of M/s. SPS Jewellers. Mere making a sweeping remark, that the claim of appellant that the cheque might have been left by any patient and was kept in safe custody is cooked up story, is of no proof. There is lacuna in the finding of the AO who even did not made any enquiry from the owner of the cheque. The entire addition has been made on sheer assumption and presumption basis. It is settled law that AO cannot make any addition merely on the basis of suspicion, however strong it may be. The AO is not justified in presuming certain facts without having anything to corroborate. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. vs. CIT, 37 ITR 21 (S.C.) that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex Court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.4.3 In view of the above discussion, the AO was not justified in making addition of presumption basis and therefore, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- is deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” On perusal of seized papers, we find that the CIT(A) has passed a well- reasoned order on this issue. Therefore, his order does not warrant any interference from us. We, therefore, uphold his order and these grounds of revenue are dismissed. IT(SS)A No. 5/Ind/2022 – Dr. Radhika Bandi: 29. The grounds raised in this appeal are as under: Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 34 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 35 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 36 of 42 Ground No. 1 to 7 and 10: 30. In these grounds, the revenue precisely claims that the CIT(A) has erred in excluding the income of Rs. 1,61,50,000/- from total income which was rightly assessed by AO in terms of section 68 read with section 115BBE. 31. Ld. Representatives of both sides agree that this issue and the underlying facts are identical to the issue involved in Ground No. 1 to 10 of IT(SS)A No. 6/Ind/2022 - M/s Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited. Therefore, no separate submissions are made during hearing. Being so, our adjudication in earlier part of this order shall apply mutatis mutandis. Applying same, these grounds of revenue are allowed. Ground No. 8 to 9: 32. In these grounds, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 36,27,731/- out of addition of Rs. 51,71,824/- made by AO on account of unexplained jewellery. 33. Ld. DR for revenue drew us to Para No. 8 of assessment-order where the AO has made this addition. The AO has noted that during search proceeding, in the statements recorded u/s 132(4), the assessee admitted undisclosed investment of Rs. 51,71,824/- in jewellery. But, while filing return, the assessee did not honour her admission and did not make any offer. Therefore, when the AO show-caused assessee for non-disclosure in return, the assessee submitted reply but the AO was not satisfied with assessee’s submission. Finally, the AO allowed relief for a part-quantity as per guidelines in CBDT Circular No. 1916 and arrived at excess quantities as under: Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 37 of 42 Gold/Gold ornaments Gold in diamond jewellery Total Diamond (carats) Physically found 3,245.80 840.81 4,086.61 76.22 Accepted by AO – As per wealth-tax return of assessee supported by Valuation- Report dated 27.07.2007 1,399.95 355.75 1,755.70 32.10 Accepted by AO – for family members of assessee 753.72 112.11 865.83 7.71 Excess 1,092.13 372.95 1,465.08 36.41 Ld. DR submitted that the excess quantities are worked out on the basis of Board Circular and such excess quantities were only seized by search- authorities and assessed by AO at Rs. 51,71,824/-. Ld. DR submitted that due credit has already been given as per Board Circular and the assessee did not deserve any more credit. But, however, the CIT(A) has wrongly allowed more credit to assessee and given relief to assessee, which is not justified. Therefore, the revenue is against the order of CIT(A). 34. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee relied heavily upon the order of CIT(A). He submitted that the search was conducted on 06.12.2016 and immediately thereafter the assessee filed an affidavit dated 15.12.2016 to Investigation Wing with supporting evidences (Page 110-113 of Paper-Book), explaining correct and complete details of sources of jewellery and the same explanation was again submitted to AO vide letter dated 14.12.2018 during assessment-proceeding (Page 89-120 of Paper-Book) alongwith copy of affidavit and supporting evidences. However, the AO dis-regarded assessee’s authentic submission and continued to make addition of Rs. 51,71,824/- for seized quantities. Ld. AR submitted that it is true that the assessee admitted undisclosed jewellery of Rs. 51,71,824/- during search but it is equally true that very soon, after completion of search, the assessee made a retraction and complete submission to Investigation Wing. Ld. AR submitted that it is a right of assessee to make authentic submission which is Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 38 of 42 appreciated by CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. AR contended, the CIT(A) has given correct credit and thereafter deleted addition partly. Ld. AR submitted that the order of CIT(A) is more correct, legal and justified as compared to the order of AO; his order must be upheld. 35. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the documentary evidences filed in the Paper-Book to which our attention has been drawn. At first, we re-produce the order passed by CIT(A) in this regard: Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 39 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 40 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 41 of 42 Greater Kailash Hospital Private Limited, Dr. Anil Bandi and Dr. Radhika Bandi, IT(SS)A Nos.06,04 & 05/Ind/2022, A.Ys.2017-18. Page 42 of 42 36. During hearing, Ld. AR has successfully demonstrated with reference to various documentary evidences filed in the Paper-Book that the CIT(A) has correctly worked out the quantum of credit considering various sources of acquisition of jewellery by assessee/family members and arrived at a correct quantity of final difference. In fact, the CIT(A) has also made a conclusion against assessee whereby he has directed the AO to charge capital gain tax on negative difference (shortage of gold). Thus, the order passed by CIT(A) is a well-reasoned order and does not require any interference from us. Therefore, we uphold CIT(A)’s order. These grounds of revenue are thus dismissed. 37. Resultantly, all three appeals of revenue are partly allowed as mentioned above. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.11.2023. Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore Ǒदनांक /Dated : 07.11.2023 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