DCIT Central-1, Bhopal V. Shri Suresh Kumar Vaswani, Bhopal

ITSSA 91/Ind/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4322 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Onus to prove
• Section: 271(1)(c); 69C; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 69A; 139(1); 13; 22

Judgement Text

IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 1 of 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) IT(SS)A No.91/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Central-1 Bhopal Vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Vaswani, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) PAN: AAKPV 6009 J Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT- DR Assessee by Ms. Nisha Lahoti, AR Date of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: THIS APPEAL: 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 09.03.2020 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-3/BPL/IT-11418, 11435, 11447, 11454, 11460 & 11471/2018-19, which in turn arises out of the order of assessment dated 30.12.2018 passed by the learned DCIT , Central-I, Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], to the extent it relates to the Assessment-Year 2014-15. IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 2 of 15 BACKGROUND: 2. The assessee is a partner in certain firms. A search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act over the premises of those firms and partners of those firms including the assessee. Originally the assessee had filed his Return of Income u/s 139(1) declaring a total income of Rs. 4,92,400/-. However, in response to the notice u/s 153A issued by the Ld. AO consequent upon the search proceedings, the assessee re-filed a Return of Income declaring a total income of Rs. 4,92,400/- i.e. without offering any additional income. The Ld. AO, however, made certain additions and passed the order of assessment u/s 153A whereby the total income was assessed at Rs. 1,76,42,400/-. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief on the grievances raised by the assessee. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed this appeal and now before us. GROUNDS: 3. The revenue has raised following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 87,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money.” GROUND NO. 1: 4. In this Ground, the issue involved is the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 69A on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account. IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 3 of 15 5. During the previous year relevant to the assessment-year under consideration, the assessee made cash-deposits on different dates, aggregating to Rs 2,50,000/-, in Mahanagar Nagrik Sahkari Bank Mydt. When the Ld. AO asked the assessee to explain the source of deposits, the assessee submitted that he had income of Rs. 5,96,482/- from different sources and also made a total cash withdrawal of Rs. 7,50,000/- from the same bank and the impugned deposits of Rs. 2,50,000/- were made out of those funds. The assessee also submitted that in the light of the income and cash withdrawals from the bank account, the amount of cash re-deposited is just Rs. 2,50,000/- which is quite reasonable and meager. However, the Ld. AO was not satisfied with the submission of assessee, particularly due to the reasoning that why a person shall withdraw money from bank, hold the same and re-deposit. The Ld. AO inferred that the assessee did not have explainable source in support of the cash deposits of Rs. 2,50,000/- and therefore invoked section 69A and made an addition of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 6. During first appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is earning income from interest, house-property and remuneration/share in profit/interest from partnership firm. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee is a regular filer of income-tax returns and declaring sizeable income year-after-year. He further observed that the assessee has made sufficient withdrawals from his bank account. He further observed that the cash deposits have been made from the income and excess cash available out of withdrawals from the bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) also considered the following “Cash Flow Statement” filed by the assessee: “CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR AY: 2014-15 Inflow of Cash Amount (Rs.) Opening cash in hand 113,011.00 Withdrawal from Bank A/c. No. 000106200000053 held with Mahanagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Mydt 750,000.00 Withdrawal from Bank A/c No. 0563020100006616 held with 40,000.00 IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 4 of 15 Punjab National Bank Cash Drawings from M/s Vaswani Brothers 299,999.00 1,203,010.00 Outflow of Cash Deposit to Bank A/c. No. 000106200000053 held with Mahanagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Mydt 250,000.00 Deposit to Bank A/c.No. 0563020100006616 held with Punjab National Bank 1,000.00 Deposit to Bank A/c. No. 10625590620 held with State Bank of India (PPF) 10,000.00 Deposit to Bank A/c. No. 18810110003404 held with UCO Bank 500.00 Deposit to Bank A/c. No. 2960 held with Mahanagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Mvdt 5,000.00 Household expenses 465,850.00 Closing cash in hand 470,660.00 After carefully considering the submission of assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee was having sufficient funds to make cash- deposits of Rs. 2,50,000/- in bank. Being satisfied, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 7. Before us, the Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. AO and argued that the assessee has not given a concrete and direct evidence to explain the source of cash-deposits of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the reasoning of Ld. AO that no prudent man shall withdraw cash from bank, keep it at home and re-deposit the same at a later date. According to the Ld. DR, the assessee must have utilized the cash-withdrawal made from his bank account for household expenses or other purposes which are not on surface. With these submissions, the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly given credence to the submission of the assessee and deleted the addition. Hence he prayed to uphold the order of Ld. AO. IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 5 of 15 8. Per contra, the Ld. AR repeated the submissions made by the assessee before the lower authorities and argued that the assessee has not only supplied the figures of income, cash withdrawals from bank and cash deposits into the bank to the lower authorities but also supported them with the documentary evidences in the form of copies of Return of Income and Bank Statements which are placed at Page No. 1 to 13 of the Paper-Book. The Ld. AR also submitted that the cash-deposits of Rs. 2,50,000/- are not unreasonably high having regard to the income of Rs. 5,96,482/- from different sources and cash withdrawal of Rs. 7,50,000/- from bank available to the assessee. With these submissions, the Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by Ld. AO and the order of Ld. CIT(A) must be upheld. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of both sides, perused the orders of lower authorities and the material held on record. We observe that the assessee has adequate sources of income and the assessee has been regularly filing his Returns of Income to the income-tax department. We also observe that the Ld. AO has simply brushed aside the submission of the assessee on his own surmise that why a person will withdraw money and keep for re-deposit on a later date. Unless the Ld. AO brings on record any otherwise utilization of the withdrawn-money, such a surmise how so ever strong, does not have legs to stand. We also find much weightage in the claim of the assessee that the cash deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- is much less as compared to the income earned by the assessee from different sources and the cash withdrawls of Rs. 7,50,000/- made from the bank. On perusal of the Cash-Flow Statement submitted by assessee, we observe that the assessee was having sufficient funds for making deposits in the bank account. We have also applied our mind to the Bank-Statement placed in the Paper-Book and observed that the assessee has made withdrawal of Rs. 50,000 on 03.04.2013 + Rs. 2,00,000 on 24.08.2013 + Rs. 1,50,000 on 31.08.2013 + Rs. 50,000 on 21.09.2013 + Rs. 3,00,000 on 13.02.2014 which aggregated to Rs. 7,50,000/-. Thereafter we have observed that the IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 6 of 15 assessee has made deposit of Rs. 40,000 on 04.02.2014 + Rs. 10,000 on 10.03.2014 + Rs. 2,00,000 on 25.03.2014, which aggregated to Rs. 2,50,000/-. From these details of date-wise withdrawals and deposits, we observe that the deposits have been made much later after having made the withdrawals. In fact the deposits have been made in the last two months of the previous year, prior to which the assessee had made not only sufficient withdrawals from the bank account but also earned income from different sources. Thus, we observe that the assessee had sufficient funds for making deposits of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by Ld. AO. In our considered view, the order of Ld. CIT(A) does not suffer from any infirmity. Hence we uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ground No. 1 of Revenue is dismissed. GROUND NO. 2 and 3: 10. In these Grounds, the revenue has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- and Rs. 87,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 69C. Since the facts relating to Ground No. 2 and 3 are inter- related as discussed in subsequent paragraphs, we deem it appropriate to deal both of these Grounds together. 11. During the course of search conducted u/s 132, a diary was found from the possession of one Shri Lokesh Vashwani, nephew of the assessee, which indicated certain financial transactions done by the assessee. The statement of Shri Lokesh Vashwani were recorded from which the Ld. AO inferred that the assessee had done two types of transactions, viz. (i) paid a sum of Rs. 80,00,000 (Rs. 25,00,000 + Rs. 25,00,000 + Rs. 30,00,000) through cheques, and (ii) received a sum of Rs. 87,00,000 (Rs. 19,00,000 + Rs. 22,00,000 + Rs. 30,00,000 + Rs. 16,00,000) in cash from Shri Lokesh Vashwani. Although the assessee made submissions in respect of these alleged financial transactions, the Ld. AO was not satisfied and made addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- and Rs. 87,00,000/-, by observing as under: IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 7 of 15 “8. During the search and seizure action, a hand written diary was found and seized as BS-08 from the residence of Shri Lokesh Vaswani which contains certain transactions between Shri Lokesh Vaswani, his family and relatives. On perusal of page-7 of the BS-08, it has been noticed that Shri Lokesh Vaswani has made certain transactions with assessee Shri Suresh Kumar Vaswani. During the search, statement of Shri Lokesh Vaswani was recorded under oath and he was confronted with page 7 of BS-08 wherein he admitted he has given Rs. 87 lakh (19 + 22 + 30 + 16) in cash to his uncle Shri Suresh Vaswani and his uncle, the assessee, has paid Rs. 80 lakh (25 + 25 + 30) through cheque as mentioned therein the dairy. Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 31/10/2018, the assessee was requested to furnish his submission explaining these two transactions along with supportive documentary evidence. The assessee through his A.R. on 25/12/2018 submitted his written submission which is summarized as following: "7. In response to paragraph no. 6 of the notice under reply, that the assessee is neither aware nor has any knowledge about anything written by Lokesh Vaswani in his so called dairy titled 'BS_08'. So far as mention of 'Suresh Chacha' on page no. 17 of 'BS _08' is concerned, it is stated that the assessee has not made any such payment by cheque. So far as mention of 'Suresh Chacha' on page no. 7 of 'BS-08' is concerned, the assessee humbly submits the following: a. As the assessee could remember, various members of his family entered into an agreement for purchase of an agricultural land admeasuring 6.00 acres situated at Revenue Survey No. 275/2, 277/2/7, 277/1, 278/2/7 and 296/277/2/7, Village Mubarakpur, Potwari Halka No. 5. Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal (MP.) for a total consideration of Rs. 3,03,06,000/-. b. In pursuance of the said agreement for sale, Lokesh Vaswani requested the assessee to expedite payments to the sellers, on which assessee made his family member to make three payments of Rs. 25,00,000/-, Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- respectively. The copy of Bank Statements evidencing these payments is annexed hereto for your perusal and verification. c. At about the same time, the assessee also requested Lokesh Vaswani to make certain payments to him, in furtherance of which Lokesh Vaswani gave four undated IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 8 of 15 cheques of Rs. 19,00,000/- Rs. 22,00,000/- Rs. 30,00,000/- and Rs. 16,00,000/- respectively. Lokesh Vaswani requested the assessee to present these cheques only at his directions, when he would have the required balance available in his account. However, these cheques were never presented and the said amount was never taken by the assessee from the names mentioned along with the amounts on the page no. 07, the assessee through certain family members as well as employees, whose names have been mentioned thereon. d. These undated cheques were given by Lokesh Vaswani to the assessee in the month of September, 2013 and as a coincident and by a matter of chance, theses cheques are still safe in the possession of the assessee, a copy of which is annexed hereto for your perusal and verification. e. So far as any other information or entry contained in the so called 'BS-08' is concerned, the assessee once again states the he was neither aware nor has any knowledge about anything written by Lokesh Vaswani" The reply of the assessee has not been found acceptable as no copy of the bank statements have been found attached as mentioned in the submission of the assessee, further, on perusal of the statements of the bank accounts of the submitted with earlier submission dated 05 Nov 2018, no record of such transactions of above mentioned amounts i.e. Rs. 25,00,000/-, 25,00,000/- & Rs. 30,00,000/- have been found in his account. In view of the above, the contention of the assessee is not found genuine and therefore not acceptable. Since the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence regarding source of above payments of Rs. 80,00,000/- to Shri Lokesh Vaswani, in view of the above facts, the same is remained as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added in the total income in the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014·15. I am also satisfied that assessee has concealed income therefore penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) is being initiated for A.Y. 2014-15 separately. 9. As discussed above, the assessee has received a sum amounting of Rs. 87,00,000/- in cash from his nephew Shri Lokesh Vaswani. In view of the above, the same is undisclosed money and added to the total income of the IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 9 of 15 assessee. In view of the above, Rs. 87,00,000/- received in cash from his nephew Shri Lokesh Vaswani is added as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 2014-15. I am also satisfied that assessee has concealed income therefore penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) is being initiated for A.Y. 2014-15 separately.” 12. In first appeal proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- and Rs. 87,00,000/- by observing as under: “4.3.1 I have considered the facts of the case, plea raised by the appellant and finding of the AO. Let me first discuss facts of the case which has not been discussed by the AO in assessment order. The appellant along with his family members entered into an agreement for purchase of an agricultural land admeasuring 6.00 acres situated at Revenue Survey No. 275/2, 277/2/7, 277/1, 278/2/7 and 296/277/2/7, Village Mubarakpur, Patwari Halka No.5, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal (M.P.) for a total consideration of Rs. 3,03,06,000/-. In pursuance of the said agreement for sale, Mr. Lokesh Vaswani requested the appellant to expedite payments to the sellers, on which the appellant made three payments of Rs. 25,00,000/-, Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- respectively. Lokesh Vaswani requested the appellant because all the members of the family, including Lokesh Vaswani gave the final decision making authority to the appellant vis-a-vis payment of consideration of aforementioned land. The appellant further explained the jotting made in the impugned diary and stated that the first entry "25 cheque from Lokesh A/c refers to the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- paid by Lokesh Vaswani himself vide cheque no. 224588 dated 20/02/2014 towards the sale consideration of the aforementioned land after getting it approved by the appellant. The second entry "25 cheque from Naveen A/c the same refers to the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- paid by Naveen Vaswani and by Smt. Kanchan Vaswani i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- vide cheque no. 154356 dated 10/11/2013, Rs. 5,00,000/- vide cheque no. 154357 dated 10/11/2013 and Rs. 5,00,000/- vide cheque no. 145958 paid on 12/10/2013. The third entry "30 cheque from Vaswani Br., the same refers to amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- advanced by M/s Vaswani Brothers to late Smt. Hari Devi Vaswani, which was thereafter paid by her towards the sale consideration of aforementioned land after getting the same approved from the appellant. The amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was transferred by M/s Vaswani Brothers to late Smt. Hari Devi Vaswani on 05/03/2014 vide cheque no. l70338. IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 10 of 15 Thereafter, late Smt. Hari Devi Vaswani made payment of said sum towards the sale consideration of aforementioned land vide cheque no. 161761 on 05/03/2014 amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/-. The appellant has also furnished relevant bank account statement in support of his claim. From the above and on perusal of bank account statement it is equivocally clear that the appellant did not make any investment of Rs. 80,00,000/- as held by the AO. It is also worth mentioning that the amount paid towards cheque and by which family member is clearly mentioned in the impugned diary. Therefore, the AO was not justified in presuming that the payments were made by appellant even when all the assessee/family member were assessed by him. Therefore, considering the inter alia facts of the case, I find no merit in the addition made by the AO and therefore, addition amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- in AY 2014-15 is Deleted. 4.3.2 Another addition has been made by the AO on account of amount given by Shri Lokesh Vaswani to the appellant. During the period when payments were made to the sellers by entire Vaswani family, appellant requested Shri Lokesh Vaswani to make certain payments to him, in furtherance of which Lokesh Vaswani gave four undated cheques of Rs. 19,00,000/-, Rs. 22,00,000/-, Rs. 30,00,000/- and Rs. 16,00,000/- vide cheque no 002586, 002587, 002588 & 002589 respectively. It was also requested by Shri Lokesh Vaswani that the cheques are to be presented only at his direction, when he would have the required balance available in his account. However, these cheques were never presented and the said amount was never taken by the appellant. The appellant has claimed that these cheques were given to appellant by Shri Lokesh Vaswani in the month of September, 2013 and these cheques are still safe in the possession of the appellant. A copy of these undated cheques has also been filed by the appellant. This fact was even confirmed by Lokesh Vaswani himself in his submission made before the AO on a sworn-in affidavit dated 19/12/2018. A copy of the said affidavits has also been filed by the appellant. I have gone through the said affidavit of Shri Lokesh Vaswani, it is worth mentioning that an affidavit is an important piece of evidence and it cannot be rejected unless an opportunity of cross-examination is granted as held by The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. M/s STL Extrusion (P) Ltd. [(2011) 17 ITJ 648 (MP)]. The AO has primarily made the addition on the basis of statement of Shri Lokesh Vaswani which is discredited after the filing of the Affidavit dated 19.12.2018 before the AO. Further, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice as the appellant was not permitted to cross-examine the persons on whose IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 11 of 15 statement the Assessing Officer relied, it would amount to deficiency, amounting to a denial of opportunity and therefore, violation of principles of natural justice. 4.3.3 Nevertheless, the AO has alleged that the payments were made in cash, however, it is evidently clear that the payments were made through cheques which were never presented for clearance by appellant. Thus, the appellant never received any such amount from Shri Lokesh Vaswani, much less in cash. It is settled legal position that onus of proof is on the person who makes any allegation and not on the person who has to defend. As per legal maxim "affairmanti non neganti incumbit probation" means burden of proof lies upon him who affirms and not upon him who denies. Similarly as per doctrine of common law "incumbit probation qui digit non qui negat" i.e. burden lies upon one who alleges and not upon one who deny the existence of the fact. The AO has failed to discharge his onus of proof especially when addition has been made under "deeming fiction". The AO is not justified in presuming certain facts without having anything to corroborate. There is nothing corroborative on record suggesting payments received in cash by the appellant. The impugned diary does not have any mention of date of payment, mode of payment, beneficiary of payments etc. Thus, it is clear that the addition has been made by the AO on assumption and presumption basis. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s 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 U macharan Saha & Bros Co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.3.4 Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the nature of transactions done with Mr. Lokesh Vaswani and other family members during the relevant previous year cannot be put under question by any extended meaning of reasonableness, much less treating the same as income of the appellant. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 87,00,000/- in AY 2014-15 is Deleted. 4.3.5 In view of the above discussion, additions made by the AO amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- & Rs. 87,00,000/- are Deleted. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is Allowed.” IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 12 of 15 13. Before us, the Ld. DR made a preliminary-objection that the Ld. CIT(A) has, without invoking Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 and without seeking any remand-report from the Ld. AO, relied upon the bank-statement of assessee which was a new evidence. Therefore according to the Ld. DR, the finding rested by Ld. CIT(A) on such bank-statement is not a valid action in the eyes of law. Against this preliminary-objection of Ld. DR, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned bank-statement was only to support the pre- existing submission of the assessee that the assessee has not made any payment from his bank-account and it is only other three-parties who had made payments of Rs. 25,00,000/-, Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- (which aggregated to Rs. 80,00,000/-) through their own cheques. Hence according to Ld. AR, there was nothing appearing in the bank-statement submitted by the assessee but it was just an ancillary document. Therefore, the bank-statement is not an evidence to prove a financial transaction routed in the bank-account, much less an additional or new evidence. We have considered the submissions of both sides and find sufficient weightage in the submission of assessee. We agree to the submission of assessee that the impugned bank-statement is merely to support the continuing submission of the assessee that there was no payment from the bank- account to which the statement pertained. Hence the Ld. CIT(A) has not committed any mistake. We, therefore, dismissed the preliminary objection of Ld. DR and proceeded to hear the detailed submissions of both sides on merit. 14. On merit, the Ld. DR vehemently relied upon the order of Ld. AO and claimed that the Ld. AO has rightly made additions which ought to be upheld. As against this, the Ld. AR claimed that findings recorded by Ld. CIT(A) are the true and factual findings and so the conclusions derived by Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Ld. AR prayed to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A). 15. We have considered rival submissions of both sides, perused the orders of lower authorities and the material held on record. We observe that the assessee has submitted before the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) that he IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 13 of 15 has neither paid a sum of Rs. 80,00,000 (Rs. 25,00,000 + Rs. 25,00,000 + Rs. 30,00,000) nor received a sum of Rs. 87,00,000 (Rs. 1 9,00,000 + Rs. 22,00,000 + Rs. 30,00,000 + Rs. 16,00,000). The assessee has also submitted that his family had entered into an agreement for purchase of an agricultural land wherein the assessee being an elder member in the family, had acted as a lead-person in materializing the transaction at the request of his nephew Shri Lokesh Vashwani. The assessee, in order to expedite payment to the sellers of the land, made the family members to give payment of Rs. 25,00,000/-, Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- to the sellers whereupon the family members made payments through their own cheques, viz. (i) Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid by Lokesh Vaswani through his cheque no. 224588 dated 20/02/2014, (ii) Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid by Naveen Vaswani and by Smt. Kanchan Vaswani i.e. Rs. 15,00,000/- vide cheque no. 154356 dated 10/11/2013, Rs. 5,00,000/- vide cheque no. 154357 dated 10/11/2013 and Rs. 5,00,000/- vide cheque no. 145958 dated 12/10/2013, and (iii) Rs. 30,00,000/- was transferred by M/s Vaswani Brothers to late Smt. Hari Devi Vaswani on 05/03/2014 vide cheque no. l70338. Thereafter, late Smt. Hari Devi Vaswani made payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- vide cheque no. 161761 dated 05/03/2014. It is also submitted by the assessee that those three family-members are also assessed by the Ld. AO and the transactions were also available before the Ld. AO for verification. Thus, the assessee had not paid a single penny out of the total payment of Rs. 80,00,000/-. Regarding the alleged receipt of Rs. 87,00,000/- in cash from Lokesh Vashwani, it is the submission of assessee that there was no cash receipt at all. But it is true that he had received four undated cheques of Rs. 19,00,000/- Rs. 22,00,000/- Rs. 30,00,000/- and Rs. 16,00,000/-, aggregating to Rs. 87,00,000/-, from Shri Lokesh Vashwani. Even those cheques were in possession of assessee and copies thereof were also submitted before the Ld. AO because they were never presented in the bank for collection. This fact was also confirmed by Lokesh Vaswani himself in his submission made before the AO on a sworn-in affidavit dated 19/12/2018. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered these facts related to the IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 14 of 15 impugned payment of Rs. 80,00,000/- and receipt of Rs. 87,00,000/-. We observe that in these facts, there is no income or undisclosed income in the hands of assessee which could be legally assessed by the Ld. AO. Hence the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by Ld. AO. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the action of Ld. CIT(A). We are, thus, inclined to uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly dismiss the Ground No. 2 and 3 of the Revenue. DISPOSITION: 16. In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules 1963 on 17.05.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) Judicial Member Accountant Member Indore 17 th May, 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 IT(SS)A No. 91/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 15 of 15 1. Date of taking dictation 4.5.22 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 despatch of the Order