JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 118/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the assessee, Jaipal Singh, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer, which pertained to various additions made to the assessee's income for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19. The primary issues revolved around alleged unexplained investments and unexplained money transactions. The Tribunal examined the evidentiary value of statements and documents seized during a search operation, the nature of the transactions recorded in the seized documents, and the legal principles governing the admissibility of such evidence. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the lack of concrete evidence linking the assessee to the alleged undisclosed income and the procedural lapses in the assessment process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 39723 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Hotel Meriya, Pr. CIT vs. Shri Roshan Lal Sancheti, Durai Murugan Kathir Anand vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Shiv Prakash Bajaj vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Saket M. Jain (HUF) vs. The PCIT-2, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ratan Corpn., Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Kumar Soni, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. MAC Public Charitable Trust
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S.R. SHARMA; R.K. BHATRA; INCOME TAX; FILLING WRITTEN SUBMISSION; INCOME TAX
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Salary income; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized; Onus to prove; Retraction; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Search and seizure; Block assessment; Source of fund; Loose papers; Competent authority; Charitable institution; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 195; 263; 192; 64; 153; 132; 153A; 68; 131; 43; 69; 13; 69A; 139; 133A; 20

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2018-19 Shri Jaipal Singh, 35, Chitragupt Nagar, 1st Imli Wala Phatak, Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKDPS 1712 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA & Sh. R. K. Bhatra, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/01/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These six appeals are filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Jaipur [ for short CIT(A)] for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19 dated 07.12.2023 & 12.12.2023. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arise as against the order dated 31.12.2019 2 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur [ for short AO ]. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 for A.Ys 2013-14 to 2018-19 are inter related, identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each year relates to one assessee and therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR has submitted that the matter in ITA No. 115/JP/2024 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical except the difference in the amount disputed in other cases for the A. Y. 2013-14 to 2018-19. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore, for the purpose of the present discussions, the case of ITA No. 115/JP/2024 is taken as a lead case. 4. At the outset of the hearing the bench noted that registry reported the appeal of the assessee was delayed of 2 days. On this aspect of the matter ld. AR of the assessee submitted that though the order of the ld. CIT(A) is 3 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT dated 07.12.2023 but the DIN for that order was generated on 11.12.2023 and therefore, considering that date there is no delay. Ld. DR did not controvert this facts and thereby we condone the delay in filling the present appeal. 5. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 115/JP/2024 on the following grounds; 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by the ld AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged on-money paid by him from undisclosed sources for purchase of flat at Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur on the basis of agreement for purchases of said flat. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 50000/- made by the AO the income of the appellant on the basis of exhibit 2 and 3 of seized Ann. AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person is not proved. 3. That the ld CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in upholding applicability of provisions of sec. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 to the addition confirmed by him vide ground No. (1) & (2) above. 4. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 5.1 In ITA No. 116/JP/2024, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in upholding finding recorded by the AO on the basis of page No. 51 to 53 of Exhibit 1 of seized Annexure AS that the appellant has purchased plot No. 14 at Muhana Mandi, Tonk Road, Jaipur which was sold on date of 4 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT purchase and that the appellant allegedly earned short term capital gain of Rs. 252000/- on said purchase and sale. 2. That the ld CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 1100000/- made by the ld AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged cash payment for purchase of plot at Muhana Road, Jaipur referred to in ground No(1) above. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 2950000/- made by the AO the income of the appellant on the basis of exhibit 2 and 3 of seized Ann. AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person is not proved. 4. That the ld CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in upholding applicability of provisions of sec. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 to the addition confirmed by him vide ground No. (2) & (3) above. 5. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 5.2 In ITA No. 117/JP/2024 the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in upholding addition of Rs. 2111000/- made by the ld AO to the income of the appellant u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of agricultural land at vill Swaroopgarh Tehsil Hindoli, Bundi on the basis of page No. 5 to 9 of Exhibit 1 of the seized Annexure AS. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 718000/- made by the AO the income of the appellant on the basis of exhibit 2 and 3 of seized Ann. AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person is not proved. 3. That the ld CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 76000/- made by the AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged interest paid to/received from parties referred to in ground No. (2) above. 4. That the ld CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in upholding applicability of provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 to the addition confirmed by him vide ground No. (1) & (2) above 5 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 5. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 5.3 In ITA No. 118/JP/2024 the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 1041000/- made by the AO the income of the appellant on the basis of exhibit 2 and 3 of seized Ann. AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person is not proved. The ld CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in upholding charging of this addition to the income of the appellant u/s115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 @ 30%. 2. That the ld CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 187000/- made by the AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged interest paid to/received from parties referred to in ground No. (1) above. 3. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 5.4 In ITA No. 119/JP/2024 the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 1481000/- made by the AO the income of the appellant on the basis of exhibit 2 and 3 of seized Ann. AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person is not proved. The ld CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in upholding charging of this addition to the income of the appellant u/s115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 @ 30%. 2. That the ld CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 248620/- made by the AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged interest paid to/received from parties referred to in ground No. (2) above. 3. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 5.5 In ITA No. 120/JP/2024 the assessee has raised the following 6 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 460000/- made by the AO the income of the appellant on the basis of exhibit-2 and 3 of seized Ann. AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person is not proved. The ld. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in upholding charging of this addition to the income of the appellant u/s 115BBE of the IT. Act, 1961 @ 30%. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 52000/- made by the AO to the income of the appellant on account of alleged interest paid to/received from parties referred to in ground No. (1) above. 3. That appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 6. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Kiran Fine Jewellers Group on 02-08-2017 of which the Assessee is one of the members. The jurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle-2, Jaipur by PCIT, Central Jaipur vide order dated 16.10.2017. 7. Notice under section 153A of the Act dated 13-12-2017 was issued and served upon the Assessee by speed post on 19-12-2017 requiring it to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 within 30 days of the service of the said notice. In response to the said notice(s), a return declaring an income of Rs. 7 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 2,60,540/- was filed by the Assessee on 28-06-2018. However, in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act no undisclosed income pertaining to the relevant year has been declared by the Assessee. The ld. AO noted that the assessee has not filed voluntary return u/s 139 of the Act for the year under consideration. The Assessee primarily derives his income from Salary and Other sources. 8. After filling the return u/s.153A of the Act, the assessment proceeding were commenced by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 12-10-2018. Later notice u/s 142(1) dated 04-02-2019 was also issued to the assessee and information and details pertaining to the case relevant to assessment of his income were called by means of a questionnaire. Later queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed fit. In response to the above referred notice(s), the assessee himself attended the hearings. The information furnished by the Assessee was examined and placed on record. The issues pertaining to assessment of income were discussed with the assessee. 9. During the search proceeding at residential premises of the assessee at 35, Chitragupt Nagar-1st , Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur wherein a sale agreement dated 03-11-2012 found and seized as page numbers 43 to 46 of Exhibit-1 of Annexure \"AS\". The aforesaid seized agreement has been 8 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT executed between Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat (seller) and Shri Satyapal Singh and Shri Jaipal Singh (purchasers) on 03.11.2012 for sale of flat at ground floor at plot No.35, Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur for sale consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/-. In the agreement, it is duly mentioned that the seller has received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash from the purchaser. The aforesaid sale agreement was subsequently registered by the assessee vide a conveyance deed dated 11-10-2013 wherein the sale consideration is reported at Rs. 21,25,000/-. The sale consideration is reported to be paid through cheque no. 11-4284 dated 10/10/2013 amounting to Rs. 17,00,000/ drawn on Allahabad Bank, Tonk Road, Jaipur and Rs. 4,25,000/-is reported to have been paid in cash. During the course of search action the statement of the assessee was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) wherein the assessee was asked to explain the reason for difference in sale consideration of flat at Ground Floor, in Plot No. 35, Chitragupt Nagari, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur sale agreement dated 03.11.2012 and registered sale deed dated 11.10.2013 executed by him with Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat, In reply the assessee has categorically stated that Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat is a builder and he has constructed total 6 flats in Plot No: 34 & 35. Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur and all the flats have been sold at the rate of Rs. 40 lacs per flat. He has further admitted 9 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT that the registered sale deeds were executed at the DLC rate, therefore, there is a difference in consideration reported in sale agreement & registered sale deed. In view of the sale agreement seized and statement of the assessee it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash to the builder as consideration of aforesaid flat. Accordingly, the detailed show caused notice was issued to the assessee on 16-09-2019 wherein he was requested to explain the source of payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- failing to which he further show caused why the said amount should not be considered as unexplained investment. In reply to the aforesaid SCN the assessee filed a written reply, wherein he submitted that the agreement was executed to obtained residential home loan from the bank. He further claimed that when agreement was executed the building was under construction no person will advance full consideration in agreement. The reply of the assessee was considered by the ld. AO but not found tenable for the reason discussed as under: (i) The argument of the assessee that the agreement was executed to obtained bank loan is totally misplaced as bank advance loan to any person based on his credit score. In the instant case the assessee is the Government employee and bank can determined his credit score from his salary slip/form-16. (ii) The assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence as such which can substantiate that no cash amount was paid whereas in the seized sale agreement it has been categorically mentioned that the seller has received Rs. 40,00,000/- from the assessee in cash. (iii) Further, the statement of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat recorded u/s 131 of the Act dated 11-12-2017 wherein at question no. 12 he acknowledge the sale 10 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT agreement under consideration which clearly established the sanctity of the seized sale agreement and the cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- is also found to be true. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the assessee has purchased a flat under consideration and made cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- vide an agreement which has not been reported in the subsequent sale deed. The cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- is 'on-money' paid by the assessee to purchase the aforesaid flat. Since, the assessee could not explain the source of that investment the same was treated as unexplained investment of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act and a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- was added back to the total income of the assessee. 10. During the course of search & seizure action at the premises of the assessee situated at 35, Chitragupt Nagar-1st Imliwala Phatak, a diary and some loose papers containing cash/cheque loan receipts & payments were found which were seized and inventorized as Annexure AS, Exhibit -2 & 3. On perusal of the seized annexure, ld. AO found that transactions of cash/cheque loan in the name of various persons were noted along with details of interest. Therefore, vide notice dated 16.09.2019 assessee was asked to explain the nature of transactions recorded on these pages, assessee was also asked to produce/provide whereabouts of the persons whose name was found recorded in seized annexure. In response, the 11 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT assessee filed reply on 13.11.2019. The assessee in furtherance of his reply submitted an affidavit sworn by him on 18.12.2019, claiming that the transactions noted on seized Annexure AS Exhibit-2 & 3 do not pertain to him and he merely acted as a middleman. Apart from assessee’s own affidavit, he further furnished affidavits of various persons wherein such person have sworn that they have entered into such transactions and assessee merely acted as middleman. Assessee also furnished identity proofs of few persons. Assessee again on 23.12.2019 furnished an affidavit sworn by him, containing name; address and PAN of few person for whom assessee acted as middleman. In the statement recorded on oath u/s 131 on 23.12.2019 assessee vehemently reiterated that the transactions noted on seized annexure does not pertains to him, he merely acted as middleman and he did not derived any income there from. However, for certain transaction he admitted that those transactions pertained to him and he must have transacted for meeting his household expenditure. The detail, documents and statements made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings were carefully observed, wherefrom it can be summarized that out of the total transactions found recorded in the seized Annexure-AS Exhibit- 2 & 3 for part transactions assessee claimed that he acted merely as middleman and for the remaining part assessee admitted 12 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT that the transactions pertained to him. To further summarize two tables were made tabulated (i) transactions not related to assessee and (ii) transactions related to assessee. In order to verify the claim of the assessee PANs so furnished by the assessee were verified on ITBA portal and all such PANs found active. Further, statement of Shri Ram Sharma s/o Sh. M. L. Sharma were recorded u/s 131 on 21.11.2017, wherein he admitted that he entered into transaction with Shri Bhanu Pratap through assessee and assessee acted as merely middleman. Considering no addition was made in the hands of the assessee for transactions recorded against the name of person Tabulated in table # 1 except Shri Nawal Kishore Sharma as the assessee failed to furnish his PAN detail. For the remaining transactions tabulated in table # 2, assessee neither furnished their names, address and PAN of such persons nor did assessee produce such person. Further, when the assessee was asked about such transactions assessee admitted that such transactions were entered by him to meet his household expenditure. In the instant case it is apparent that onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table # 2 is considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of 13 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT the act and year wise amount was tabulated by ld. AO and same is reproduced herein below:- Page of Ex-3 Name Date Amount AY 37 Shri Ramchandra Saini 05/11/2012 50,0000.00 2013-14 50,000.00 33 Shri Krishan Kant Sanadhya 07/08/2013 750,000.00 2014-15 33 Shri Krishan Kant 07/08/20213 1,000,000.00 2014-15 14 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 15 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT Sr. no. AY. 2013-14 A.Y 2014-15 A.Y 2015-16 AY 2016-17 A.Y 2017-18 A.Y 2018-19 Amount 50,000 2950000 718000 1041000 1481000 460000 Based on above table a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was added back to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the act for year under consideration. 11. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under: The appellant has challenged addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made on account of alleged cash payment made for purchase of a residential flat situated at ground floor of Plot No. 35. Chitragupta Nagar-1, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur, as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961. In his submission the appellant has made contention that no cash was actually paid as mentioned in the said Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding to sale but that was only a notional/symbolical amount and written for bank loan purposes. Further he made contention that the observation and finding of the AO are not on the legal footings for the reasons that the loan was to be advanced/borrowed on the security of the residential flan and the bank is only apprised/analyzed the period of payment of loan installments with reference to the salary income of the concerned person. 5.3 The appellant has claimed that the appellant and one Shri Satyapal Singh both were residing as tenants in the residential house situated at Plot No. 35, Chitragupta Nagar-1, Irmliwala Phatak, Jaipur since last more than 25 years. The said residential house was earlier owned by one Smt. Vidhya Mathur wife of Shri Basant Behari Mathur. In the month of October, 2012 the said house was purchased by Shri Chotu Ram Kumawat through a Registered Sale Deed from Smt. Vidaya Mathur & Others for construction of residential flats thereon. Since the appellant and one Shri Satyapal Singh were tenants in the said house and 16 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT there was a pending litigation from the year 2006 filed by the appellant, co-tenant Shri Satyapal Singh against the house owner Shri Basant Behari Mathur for not de-possessing/vacation @ the said house by the tenants. To withdraw and settle down the above said dispute already going on amongst the above said persons, Shri Chotu Ram Kumawat approached the appellant and co-tenant Shri Satyapal Singh. Appellant further claimed that it was mutually agreed by and between Shri Chotu Rans Kumawat and the tenants that an Agreement to Sale cam Memorandum of Understanding should be executed for a residential flat st ground floor out of the multi-storied residential apartment to be constructed by Shri Chotu Ram Kumawat. In the apirit of aaid settlement, an Agreement cim Memorandum of Understanding was executed on 03.11.2012 amongst the appellant, Shri Satyapal Singh and Shri Choti Ram Kumawat. In the said Agreement to sale to create a moral binding on Shri Chotu Ram Kumawat and also for bank loan purposes a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- has also been shown as paid in cash. 5.4 The Ld. Assessing officer vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A passed on 31.12.2019 held as under:- “7.7 The reply of the assessee duly considered but not found tenable for the reason discussed as under: (i) The argument of the assessee that the agreement was executed to obtained bank loan is totally misplaced as bank advance loan to any person based on his credit score. In the instant case the assessee is the Government employee and bank can determined his credit score from his salary slip/form-16. (ii) The assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence as such which can substantiate that no cash amount was paid whereas in evidence as such categorically mentioned that the seller has received Rs. 40,00,000/- from the assessee in cash. (iii) Further, the statement of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat recorded u/s 131 of the Act dated 11-12-2017 wherein at question no. 12 he acknowledge the sale agreement and the cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- is also found to be true. In view of the above discussion it is evident that the assessee has purchase a flat under consideration and made cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- vide an agreement which has not been reported see to subsequent sale deed. The cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- is 'on-money paid by the assessee to purchase the aforesaid flat. Since, the assessee could not the source of same. Hence, same is held unexplained investment of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act and a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- is added back to the total income of the assessee and taxable at the rate of 30% as provision u/s 11588E.\" 17 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 5.5 In his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of action of search the appellant has agreed that the flats have been sold by Sri Chhotu Ram at a rate of around rupees 40,00,000 per flat and the registration has been got done at that DLC rates for all the flats and the appellant further clarified in his statement that is the reason for difference in the amounts mentioned in the memorandum and the registered sale deed. This issue is discussed in para 7.3 starting page 3 of the assessment order. Further as noted by the Ld. AD and as not disputed in appeal, Shri Chhotu Kumawat recorded u/s 131 of the Act dated 11-12-2017 wherein at question No. 12 he Acknowledge the sale agreement under consideration which clearly established the sanctity of the seized sale agreement and the cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- is also found to be true. The assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence as such which can substantiate that no cash amount was paid whereas in the seized sale agreement it has been categorically mentioned that the seller has received Rs. 40,00,000/- from the assessee in cash. The explanation submitted by the appellant later on and during the appeal proceedings is merely an afterthought that the said agreement was executed at Rs 40 lakhs for the purpose of obtaining bank loan for buying the property is also not correct factually. As per appellant's own submission appellant took bank loan of only Rs. 17 lakhs with respect to the impugned property which is not comparable to the value of Rs. 40 lakhs. Registration of the property has been done after one year in Oct. 2013 whereas the agreement in question is executed on 03-11-2012. It is clearly mentioned in the agreement of November 2012 that payment in cash of Rs. 40 lakhs has already been made between the parties. The submission of the appellant that only half of the alleged cash could be added in the hands of the appellant because half of the share pertained to Shri satyapal Singh is not acceptable as it has not been shown that this is not an afterthought and that it was the factual claim of the appellant since beginning. Secondly from the documents on record it is seen that in October 2013 Sri Satyapal Singh has entered into registered agreement of purchase with respect to the first floor of the building whereas in the same month in October 2013 Shri Jaipal Singh the appellant has entered in registered agreement of purchase with respect to the ground floor which is the property in the agreement which has been seized and which agreement pertains to November 2012 wherein there is mention of payment Rs 40 lakhs in cash. Since ultimately the property has been registered in the names of Shri Jaipal Singh the appellant and he is the beneficiary and there is 18 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT no other circumstantial or other evidence on record that the payment was made half and half by two parties and thus this claim cannot be accepted. 5.6 Further, regarding the legal principles to examine the validity of the retraction of statement, guidance is taken from the following judgments: CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) [26.05.2010] x x x x Pr. CIT vs. Shri Roshan Lal Sancheti [IT Appeal No. 47 of 2018, dated 30.10.2018], Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. x x x x In the above judgment, inter-alia, the following arguments were taken on behalf of the assessee which stand rejected:- “Per contra, Mr. Prakul Khurana, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that the surrender was extracted from the assessee by income tax authorities during the search proceedings by use of coercion, duress and threat, which facts have been explained by the assessee in greater detail in the affidavit of retraction. It is argued that affidavits of Shii Suresh, Shri Ashok Jat and ShriPadam Kumar Jain were also filed, in which they have stated on oath that they did not own any land and therefore there did not arise any question of their accepting any advance from the assessee. Learned counsel referred to Instruction No. 286/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which acknowledges the fact that in certain cases, assessees are forced to disclosed the income during the course of search, seizure and survey operations. It was advised therein that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which lead to information of what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Department, and no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to any disclosed income. Circumstances in which the assessee had to give the statements under Section 132(4) and/or under Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details the circumstances which led to surrender and how the surrender was extracted from the assessee from the aforesaid seven papers. The assessee has not brought any evidence on record to prove the facts mentioned by the assessee in the affidavit. The persons whose names were mentioned on the papers seized by the department have also denied any amount having been received by them from the assessee as advance against the sale of the properties/land. Learned counsel argued that the Assessing Officer has not given any reason in the assessment order as to why the explanation given by the assessee in the 19 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT affidavit was not acceptable. Learned CIT(A) has given detailed reasons in respect of each deletion a of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Another, (1973) 91 ITR 0018 (SC) and submitted that the Supreme Court therein held that the admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given proper opportunity to show the correct state of affairs. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Narayan and Bros. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Investigation Circle, Salern, (2011) 13 Taxmann.com 49 (Madras) wherein retraction made during the course of assessment proceedings was entertained and relief was granted on merits of the explanation. It is argued that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of statements which are subsequently retracted even belatedly as held by Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Sunil Aggarwal, (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 107 (Delhi). Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Limited Vs. DCIT (TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmanın.com 184 Rajasthan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. RatanCorpn., (2005) 197 CTR 536 (Gujarat); The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer Vs. ShriDevendra Kumar Choudhary, 2-S-10 to 2-S-18, Basant Vihar, Bhilwara, ITA No. 828/JP/16; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni, (2007) 291, ITR, 172 (Raj.); Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat); Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand); Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. ShriRamdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh); Chetnaben J. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CIR 579 (Gujarat).\" (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in this case further held as under:- \"In view of the law discussed above, it must be held that statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act and later confirmed in statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the assessee has retracted the same because such retraction ought to have been generally made within reasonable time or by filing complaint to superior authorities or otherwise brought to notice of the higher officials by filing duly 20 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT sworn affidavit or statement supported by convincing evidence. Such a statement when recorded at two stages cannot be discarded summarily in cryptic manner by observing that the assessee in a belatedly filed affidavit has retracted from his statement. Such retraction is required to be made as soon as possible or immediately after the statement of the assessee was recorded. Duration of time when such rotraction is made assumes significance and in the present case retraction has been made by the assessee after almost eight months to be precise, 237 days (Emphasis supplied) CIT, Bikaner vs. Shri Ravi Mathur (D.B. Income-tax Appeal No. 67/2002), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court x x x x Commissioner of Income-tax v. MAC Public Charitable Trust [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 368 (Madras)[31-10-2022] x x x x Dr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 118 Taxman 252 (Allahabad) x x x x Bachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana) x x x x CIT vs. Hotel Meriya (2010) 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537 (Kerala)(26.05.2010) x x x x CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) (29.09.2010) x x x x Headnotes Section 132, read with section 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure. Block periods 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1995 and 1-4-1995 to 12-12-1995 Whether section 132(4) enables an authorized officer to examine a person on oath and such a sworn statement made under section 132(4), thus can be used as an evidence under Act. Held, yes - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee whereby cash, jewellery, books of account and certain documents were found and seized - Assessee on same day had given a statement under section 132(4) where under admissions with regard to unaccounted income of Rs. 6.20 lakhs were made - Said unaccounted income consisted of marriage expenditure, unexplained household expenditure, etc. - Assessing Officer, made additions in respect of unaccounted income of Rs. 6.20 lakhs admitted under section 132(4) However, after lapse of about nine months from date of admission, assessee through an affidavit sought to retract from statement made under section 132(4) on ground that (a) when there was no evidence or incriminating material discovered at time of search no addition could have been made merely on basis of statement under section 132(4) and (b) that 21 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT impugned disclosure under admission was obtained forcefully and, hence, not binding - Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) is an evidence by itself and any retraction contrary to that should be supported by strong evidence for demonstrating that earlier evidence recorded was under coercion Held, yes Whether assessee retracted from his earlier statement without demonstrating any evidence to establish that statement recorded earlier was incorrect; an allegation of compulsion or coercion must not be accepted merely on a statement if remained unsubstantiated Held, yes Whether, therefore, addition made on basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) was to be upheld Held, yes 5.7 Appellate has not produced evidences to meet and satisfy the law in above judgements of Hon'ble Courts. The appellant has not furnished evidences to prove the earlier evidence (statement u/s 132(41) as incorrect. Further, statement u/s 132(4) itself is evidence (as per judgement in Kantilal C. Shah (supra). 5.8 In view of the above discussion on the facts of the case it is clear that the payment of rupees forty lakhs was made in cash and to that extent the appellant was found to be owning and thus invested such cash in unaccounted manner. The actual transaction price of the immovable property was Rs. 40 lakhs. In the course of search action it has been found that the appellant has been regularly indulging in transactions of sale and purchase of immovable properties and it cannot be said that he is not having other sources of income and he has been earning income as middleman and income as gain in property transactions also. From the facts of the case it is proved that in November 2012 the appellant had unaccounted cash and secondly that he invested such unaccounted cash for the purchase of property whereas the registry of the same took place after one year in Oct. 2013. Source of the cash paid in Nov. 2012 remains unexplained. In view of this discussion it is correct to bring to tax such unaccounted cash and alternatively unaccounted investment on Nov. 2012 in the hands of the appellant in the A.Y. 2013-14 pertaining to F.Y. 2012-13 and tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 6.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AD in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- The appellant has challenged that id. AO made an addition of Rs. 50,000/-on account of alleged loan advanced to Shri Ram Chandra Saini. He made contention that the appellant was only a middleman/conduit and he was arranging 22 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT money from the prospective lenders and advancing the same to the prospective borrowers. During the course of search & seizure action at the premises of the appellant situated at 35, Chitragupt Nagar-1st,ImliwalaPhataka diary and some loose papers containing cash/cheque loan receipts & payments were found which were seized and inventorized as Annexure AS, Exhibit -2 &3. On perusal of the seized annexure it was found that transactions of cash/cheque loan in the name of various persons were noted along with details of interest. Therefore, vide notice dated 16.09.2019 he was asked by the Id. AO to explain the nature of transactions recorded on these pages, assessee was also asked to produce/provide whereabouts of the persons whose name was found recorded in seized annexure. 6.3 The appellant in inter-alia submitted an affidavit sworn by him on 18.12.2019, claiming that the transactions noted on seized Annexure AS Exhibit-2 & 3 does not pertains to him and he merely acted as a middleman. Apart from his own affidavit, he further furnished affidavits of various persons wherein such person have sworn that they have entered into such transactions and appellant merely acted as middleman. He also furnished identity proofs of few persons. Appellant again on 23.12.2019 furnished an affidavit sworn by him, containing name, address and PAN of few persons for whom assessee acted as middleman. 6.4 In the statement recorded on oath u/s 131 on 23.12.2019 the appellant also admitted that some transactions pertained to him and he must have transacted for meeting his household expenditure i.e., he owned the transactions as his own funds These affidavits and statement have been extracted in the assessment order. Considering the statements, affidavits, seized documents etc. the Id. A0 summarized that out of the total transactions found recorded in the seized Annexure AS Exhibit-2 & 3, for part transactions assessee was able to show that he acted merely middleman and for the remaining part assessee admitted that the transactions pertained to him. To further summarize two tables are tabulated (1) transactions not related to assessee and (ii) transactions related to assessee in para 8.5 of the assessment order. 6.5 For the transactions tabulated in table # 2, appellant assessce neither furnished their names, address and PAN of such persons nor did he produce such person. Further, when the appellant assessee was asked about such 23 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT transactions assessee admitted that such transactions were entered by him to meet his household expenditure. In the instant case it is apparent that onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the amount recorded in aforementioned table 2 was considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6.6 The appellant was having complete details of the parties for whom he acted as the middleman and such parties were tabulated in table one by the learned AO and for the transactions in table 2 the appellant did not furnish any details which is in itself sufficient to show that it was his own funds as when he could furnish the name address, PAN, affidavits and even produce some of the parties with respect to table i then why such details could not be subraitted by the appellant with respect to transactions in table 2. With respect to parties and transactions in table 2 the appellant could not show the name address identity and source etc. and thus the same remains unexplained. The implication of the same is that if any transaction or party gets shifted in its nature of transaction from table 1 to table 2 i.e. where the identity etc. of the third party w.r.t. the transactions stand rejected, the same shall be taxed in the hands of the appellant accordingly as if it formed part of transactions in table 2. 6.7 Appellant is having unaccounted money with him and such unaccounted money has not been recorded in the books and thus covered by section 69A of the Act. With respect to the source of the funds the appellant is required to satisfy the identity genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties from whom the funds are received, however that is not the claim of the appellant. Further when such amount is lent by the party in an unaccounted manner the loan asset in the hands of the lender needs to be explained by him with respect to the source of such investment/asset. In view of the discussion such amount is taxable as per section 69A and also alternatively as per section 69 of the Act and it is held accordingly. In view of the above discussion, the submissions of the appellant to counter the assessment order on this ground cannot be accepted and the same are rejected in view of the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 7.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contention/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- 24 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT In the course of search action it has been found that the appellant has been regularly indulging in transactions of sale and purchase of immovable properties and in transactions of uncounted money lending and thus is having other sources of income which have been kept undisclosed and unaccounted. Evidences have been unearthed regarding unaccounted incomes of the appellant. In this ground, the appellant has made general submissions which are in the nature of consequential submissions to the main addition. Considering the facts of the case the ld. AO correctly taxed the income under section 115BBE and accordingly this ground of Appeal is hereby dismissed. 8.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of interest of Rs. 8,25,900/- u/s 234B. In this regard it is stated that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore, the AO is directed to give effect of the same on the income determined vide this appellate order. Accordingly, the Ground of Appeal raised by the appellant on this issue is dismissed.” 12. As the assessee did not find any favour from the appeal so filed before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as stated here in above. To support the grounds so taken by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission which reads as under : The above appeal has been filed by the appellant against the appeal order dated 07.12.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur in appeal No. 1346/2019-20. The appellant has raised following grounds of appeal before your honour :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by the ld. AO the income of the appellant on account of alleged on-money paid by him from undisclosed sources for purchase of flat at Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur on the basis of agreement for purchases of said flat. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 50,000/- made by the AO to the income of the appellant on the basis of exhibit 2 and 3 of seized 25 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT Ann. AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person is not proved. 3. That the ld CIT(A) is also wrong and has erred in law in upholding applicability of provisions of sec. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 to the addition confirmed by him vide ground No. (1) & (2) above. 4. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. With reference to above grounds of appeal, the appellant submits as follows :- 1. Facts of the case 1(i) The appellant belongs to a very small village and is a 3rd Grade school teacher and his only source of income is salary from the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan. As being a government servant, his close relatives approached him for arrangement of interest bearing funds to establish their business(s). On their request, the appellant arranged friendly loans for them from his fellow teaching staff / colleagues and other relations. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961, was carried out on 02.08.2017 on M/s Kiran Fine Jewellers group of assessees. It is a finding of the learned AO, that assessee is a member of the said Jewellers group. But, the said finding is absolutely incorrect. The correct facts are that one Shri Ashok Singh a village neighbor of the appellant, during his study period he was staying with appellant. At the said period of time, he might have applied for IT PAN and in the application form, he filled up the address of appellant’s residential house. However, the said Shri Ashok Singh had shifted from the said place long before the date of search. But, due to non- amendment of address in PAN, the IT Deptt. search team reached at the residence of the appellant to search Shri Ashok Singh and to appellant. Further, Shri Ashok Singh and his elder brother are closely associated with M/s Kiran Fine Jewellers group. As per above facts, the appellant was not a member of M/s Kiran Fine Jewellers Group. It is further submitted that the appellant is a petty means person and there was absolutely no satisfaction with the IT Department regarding any undisclosed income of the appellant and also no warrant of search at the time of initiation of the search proceedings against M/s Kiran Fine Jewellers Group of assessees. 1(ii) During the course of search at the residential premises of the appellant, a diary was found and seized by the IT department. The said diary having notings of the transactions of loan(s) arranged by the appellant from his teacher colleagues, close family relations and further advanced the said loans to his said relations. Based on the said notings, a search warrant was obtained in the name of appellant from the competent authority by the IT department, search team already camping at appellant’s house and proceeding u/s 132A of IT Act, 1961 was started. A notice 26 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 was issued, return of income for the assessment year under appeal declaring salary and bank interest income at Rs 2,60,540/- was filed. No return was submitted u/s 139 of the IT Act, 1961 for the reason that TDS was deducted out of the salary income and the employer Government of Rajasthan has submitted the complete particulars and details of TDS made on the Income Tax Portal. Finally, the assessment has been completed after making addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged cash payment made for purchase of residential flat and Rs. 50,000/- u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged loan(s) and advance(s) to Shri Ram Chandra Saini. Computing the total assessable income at Rs. 43,10,540/-. In this connection, it is worthwhile to submit here that there was no unexplained money / undisclosed income but the amount was of the loan(s) and advance(s) arranged from his fellow teachers and known persons and relations. Thus, the action of invoking the provision of 69A of the IT Act, 1961 is grossly wrong and bad in law. 2. Action of Ld. A.O. The ld. AO made the impugned addition on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 40,00,000/- made in purchase of flat at Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur, on the basis of a statement of the appellant recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961, with reference to an agreement to sale dated 03.11.2012. The said sale agreement was executed in between Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat and Shri Satyapal Singh and the appellant Shri Jaipal Singh. The findings for making the said addition by the ld. AO are given at para No. 7.4 to 7.7 of the impugned assessment order. In this regard, it is further submitted that regarding appellant’s submissions that the said agreement was executed as a security for bank loan purposes only, has been rejected by the ld. AO on flimsy grounds that the argument placed by the appellant “is totally misplaced, as bank advance loan to any person based on his credit score. In the instant case, the assessee is the State Government employee and bank can determine his credit score from his salary slip / form No. 16”. Regarding addition u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged loan of Rs. 50,000/- to Shri Ram Chandra Saini. The ld. AO made an addition as per the findings given at para No. 8 to 8.7 of the assessment order. It is verifiable from the said finding(s) that the addition has been made for the reason that the assessee failed to furnish name, address and PAN Number of Shri Ram Chandra Saini. 3. Action of the Ld. CIT(A) 3(i) The ld. CIT (A) decided the appeal vide para No. 5.2 to 5.8. As evident and verifiable from the said paras of the appellate order that the learned CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the ld. AO has solely relied upon the statement of the appellant recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) also placed reliance on various case laws mentioned in the impugned order to strength his version. Finally, ld. CIT(A) confirmed / sustained the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of flat and also confirmed an addition of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 69A on account of alleged loans and advances relying upon the findings given in the assessment order by the 27 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT learned AO. Further, it is also evident from the appellate order that the ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected the evidences and submissions made by appellant before him and also the legal objection to apply the section 69A of the IT Act, 1961 on account of loan transaction as an unexplained money. 3(ii) The appellant against the said action of the ld. CIT(A) filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Bench raising the grounds of appeal submitted in para (1) supra. 4. GROUND WISE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT Ground No. 1 4(i) The first ground of appeal is challenging, the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made on account of alleged cash paid in purchase of residential flat at Chitragupt Nagar, Imiliwala Phatak, Jaipur. The brief undisputed facts of the above said transaction as submitted before the Hon’ble lower authority are as follows :- 4(i)(a) One Shri Satyapal Singh and the appellant Shri Jaipal Singh were tenants in the residential house situated at 35, Chitragupt Nagar–I, Imiliwala Phatak, Jaipur since the year 1990-2000. 4(i)(b) The said residential house was owned by Smt. Vidhya Mathur W/o Shri Basant Bihari Mathur 4(i)(c) In October, 2012, Smt. Vidhya Mathur sold the said house by executing a registered sale deed to Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat. 4(i)(d) Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat is a contractor and engaged in building construction activities i.e. constructing the Flats, Villas, etc. and selling to the prospective buyers. He purchased the said house to construct residential flats to sell thereof to the prospective buyers. 4(i)(e) Since, Shri Satyapal Singh and the appellant both were tenants and there was ongoing litigation in between the previous owner Smt. Vidhya Mathur and the above referred tenants since the year 2006. The said litigation was pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Civil Court, Jaipur (Raj.) 4(i)(f) As Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat purchased the house for construction of residential flats and sale thereof. Accordingly, as a prudent business man policy to carry on smooth / hassle free business activities, he approached to Shri Satyapal Singh and the appellant to settle the said dispute regarding vacation of tenanted house out of court. 4(i)(g) After negotiation in between the above referred concerned parties, it was agreed that Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat will allot / sale a ground floor flat for a total consideration of Rs. 21,25,000/- to the tenants i.e. Shri Satyapal Singh and appellant Shri Jaipal Singh and the tenants shall withdraw the civil suit petition. 4(i)(h) It was a fact that in connection of flats about 1 to 2 years time would be taken and as such to protect the interest, to honour and make binding the mutually agreed terms of the settlement. It was mutually agreed in between both the parties that an agreement to Sale-cum-Memorandum of Understanding should be 28 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT executed for the said residential flat and the tenants will withdrew the civil suit pending before the Hon’ble Civil Court. 4(i)(i) As per above said agreed terms of the settlement, an unregistered (kachha) agreement-cum-MoU was executed on 03.11.2012 by and amongst Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat, Shri Satyapal Singh and appellant Shri Jaipal Singh mentioning therein total sale consideration at Rs. 40,00,000/-. Further to avoid future disputes and more secure the mutually agreed terms, the entire sale consideration was mentioned / shown in the agreement as paid in cash. 4(i)(j) The said whole exercise was exclusively done for the purpose of ensuring the compliance of the terms of settlement arrived in between tenants and the new owner of the house. Because the pending litigation with the Hon’ble Civil Court has to be withdrawn. Thus, in simple terms, it can be submitted that only to protect the interest of the tenants, the said symbolical / notional agreement to sale was executed. A copy of application submitted before the Hon’ble Civil Court to withdraw the civil suit is enclosed. 4(i)(k) It is also a fact that the appellant and Shri Satyapal Singh, co-tenant both are petty means persons and were absolutely unable to pay the agreed purchase consideration of the residential flat and accordingly, the said agreement to Sale- cum-MoU was also used for bank loan purposes. Because as per banker(s) policy, only part of the amount is being advanced and not the full consideration. 4(i)(l) It is submitted that the statement of the appellant u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961 was recorded under force and into making depositions to suit the IT department. Further as evident from the statement itself that the appellant has not stated / admitted that he paid Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash to Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat. A copy of relevant part of the said statement is appearing at top of page No. 4 of the assessment order. However, for ready reference, the said relevant part is reproduced herein below :- “ i izz’ ’u u 1 15 5 % vkius Plot No. 35 ij fufeZr tks ¶ySV fp=xqIr uxj t;iqj esa Jh NksVw jke dqekor ls [kjhnk gS mldk bdjkj ukek vkids vkSj NksVw jke ds chp fnukad 03-11-2012 dks fy[kk x;k gS] 100 :- ds stamp paper ij fy[kk x;k gSA ftlesas NksVw jke dqekor us :- 40]00]000@& vkils izkIr djuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA ijUrq fnukad 11-10-2013 dks tks foØ; i= iathd`r fd;k x;k gS mlesa ¶ySV flQZ :- 21]25]000@& esa foØ; djuk crk;k x;k gS d`i;k fLFkfr Li\"V djs A m mR Rr rj j % NksVw jke dqekor ,d Builder gS mlus Plot No. 34 o 35 fp=xqIr uxj] t;iqj esa dqy 6 ¶ySV cuk,a gS rFkk lHkh ¶ySVks dks yxHkx 40 yk[k izfr ¶ySV ds vkl&ikl cspk gS ijUrq jkftLVªh;kW lHkh esa DLC rate ls djokbZ gS A esjs ekeys esa Hkh jftLVªh DLC rate ls djokbZ gSA vr% bdjkjukes dh jkf’k ,oa jftLVªh dh jkf’k esa vUrj vk jgk gSA ” 4(i)(m)It is also learnt from the assessment order that a statement of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat was also recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 11.12.2017 and he allegedly confirmed the agreement to sale under consideration. However, the ld. AO neither informed about the said statement nor a copy thereof was supplied to appellant. Thus, the impugned proceeding has been conducted behind the back of the appellant and the same are also without providing any opportunity to cross- examine Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat. In this connection, it is submitted that the 29 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT appellant during the course of appellate proceedings, filed an application on 06.07.2023 to the ld. AO to supply a copy of statements of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat and Shri Radhey Shyam Choudhary recorded during the post search proceedings. But, till today no copy of the said statements have been supplied to the appellant. A certified copy having acknowledgment of filing the said application with the ld. AO is enclosed herewith. Thus, the action of the learned AO is completely against the settled legal position on the issue and also against the principle of natural justice refer M/s Andman Timber Industries - t th he e H Ho on n' 'b bl le e S Su up pr re em me e C Co ou ur rt t i in n c ca as se e o of f M M/ /s s A An nd dm ma an n T Ti im mb be er r I In nd du us st tr ri ie es s h he el ld d t th ha at t w wi it th ho ou ut t g gi iv vi in ng g o op pp po or rt tu un ni it ty y o of f c cr ro os ss s e ex xa am mi in na at ti io on n t th he e a as ss se es ss sm me en nt t c co om mp pl le et te ed d i is s a a n nu ul ll li it ty y. . T Th he er re ef fo or re e, , t th he e s st ta at te em me en nt t o of f w wi it tn ne es ss s c ca an nn no ot t b be e s so ol le e b ba as si is s o of f t th he e a as ss se es ss sm me en nt t w wi it th ho ou ut t g gi iv ve en n a an n o op pp po or rt tu un ni it ty y o of f c cr ro os ss s e ex xa am mi in na at ti io on n a an nd d c co on ns se eq qu ue en nt tl ly y i it t i is s a a s se er ri io ou us s f fl la aw w w wh hi ic ch h r re en nd de er rs s t th he e a as ss se es ss sm me en nt t o or rd de er r a a n nu ul ll li it ty y. . 4(i)(n) As per above facts and circumstances of the case, it is again submitted that the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by the ld. AO is based on presumption, surmises and conjectures only without bringing on record any cogent material and also any undisclosed sources of alleged investment of Rs. 40,00,000/- made in cash by the appellant and Shri Satyapal Singh. The submissions are also supported by the assessment order itself that appellant is only having petty income of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the Government of Rajasthan and Shri Satyapal Singh is a small agriculturist carrying agricultural activity at his native place. In support of this fact the appellant also places on record that he got noted the entire transaction in his above referred seized diary and in the said diary there is no noting about the above said alleged cash payment for purchase of the residential flat. It is further submitted that the appellant purchased the residential flat for Rs. 21,25,000/- and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- were paid from the bank loan and Rs. 4,25,000/- out of his accumulated past year savings from salary income. Further, now it is a settled position of law that no addition can be made on the basis of seized document indicating purchase of property by assessee because such document(s) is not conclusive proof of On Money transaction. Ref. CIT vs. Prem Prakash Nagpal, 40 taxmann.com 153 and also in case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 103 Taxman 382 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The use of the word “may” indicates that the intention of the Parliament in enacting section 69 was to confer a discretion on the AO in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee and the AO is not obliged to treat such source of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory. The question whether the source of the investment should be treated as income or not under section 69 has to be considered in the light of the facts of each case.” In view of the above facts and circumstances of appellant further submits that he made no unexplained alleged investment of Rs. 40,00,000/- in purchase of the flat. It is prayed that the impugned addition made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this account deserves to be deleted. 30 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 4(ii) Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that the said residential flat was agreed to be purchased by two persons i.e. appellant and Shri Satyapal Singh. But the ld. AO has made the addition of entire alleged purchase consideration in the hands of the appellant. Thus, in the interest of justice, if any, addition is to be made on this account, then the same is to be restricted to Rs. 20,00,000/- only i.e. 1/2 of total alleged purchase consideration and not of the entire amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- as made by the AO. Although, the appellant does not accept for any such cash payment. 4(iii) The appellant prays for relief accordingly. 5. Ground No. 2 The second ground of appeal is challenging, the addition of Rs. 50,000/- made to the income of the appellant on account of loan advanced to Shri Ram Chandra Saini on 05.11.2012. In this connection, the appellant submits as follows:- 5(i) It is submitted that as per the facts of the case the appellant was only a middle man / conduit and he was arranging money from the prospective lenders and advancing the same to the prospective borrowers (his relations). 5(ii) Facts :- During the course of search and seizure action at the premises 35, Chitragupt Nagar-I, Imiliwala Phatak, Jaipur, a diary and some loose papers were found and seized marked vide seized annexure AS, exhibit 2 & 3. Copy enclosed at PBP 7-158. In the said seized diary, transactions of cash / cheque loans receipt(s) and further advances were found noted. As submitted in para 1 supra that the appellant is a 3rd Grade School Teacher in the State Government and as per the requirement of loans from his close relations, he arranged loans from his fellow teachers and advances, some to his relation / known persons. The said facts are also verifiable from the copy of the affidavit(s) reproduced at page No. 8, 9 and 10 of the assessment order. A statement of the appellant was also recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 23.12.2019 by the ld. AO and relevant part of the statement is reproduced at page No. 12 and 13 of the assessment order. It is verifiable that the fact regarding noting in the said diary has been reconfirmed by the appellant in the said statement. As per above facts and documentary evidences, there is no ambiguity regarding the nature and transactions noted in the said seized diary and the version of the appellant that he acted only a middle man / conduit in carrying on the said transactions 5(iii) The ld. AO, during the course of assessment proceedings regarding transactions noted in diary prepared two tables marked as Table-1 “Transactions not related to assessee and Table-2 transactions related to assessee”. The Table- 1 is appearing at page No. 14 and Table-2 is at page No. 15 and 16 of the assessment order. (The transactions of Table-1 are not visible and as such, a separate visible copy of the said transactions is enclosed herewith). 5(iv) As evident from the findings of the ld. AO that the transactions as per Table-1 have not been considered for making addition for the reasons that the 31 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT appellant has submitted/ furnished, the PAN number affidavit / identity prove, accepted one Shri Nawal Kishore Sharma in his case the PAN Number is not mentioned. Regarding transactions as per Table No.-2, it is a finding of the ld. AO that “Assessee neither furnished their names, address and PAN Number of such persons nor did assessee produce such person”. The ld. AO further given a finding that “it is apparent onus proves the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee, and he failed to discharge it”. Relying on this theory, the learned AO tabulated assessment year wise alleged unexplained transactions being a money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 at page No. 17 and 18 of the assessment order. 5(v) Submissions :- During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant prepared and filed a cash book-cum-cash flow chart of all the transactions noted in the said seized diary. A copy of the said cash book-cum cash flow chart is enclosed herewith at PBP………… The said cash book–cum-cash flow chart has name of the person who advanced loan, date, amount further advanced utilization and cash balance in hand. Thus, the sources of incoming funds and further disbursement / outgoing thereof are verifiable from the said cash book-cum-cash flow chart. Further, the learned AO made the addition u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961, which is wrong as the said section is applicable on account of unexplained money. Further the said action of the ld. AO is also contradiction of his own findings given in the assessment order that, the additions have been made on account of alleged unexplained source of advance(s) made by the concerned lender persons. Thus, at the outset, it is submitted that the addition made by the ld. AO is apparently wrong and bad in law. 5(vi) It is verifiable from the cash flow statement page No.1 that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- advance to Shri Ram Chandra Saini was out of Rs. 2,00,000/- received from Smt. Saroj Kanwar (Mashi Sha) on 14.10.2012. The said transaction of Smt. Saroj Kanwar has been considered by the ld. AO as not pertaining to the appellant vide Table No.1, page No. 14 and entry No. 16. Thus, the sources of the amount advanced to Shri Ram Chandra Saini has been accepted by the ld. AO being the amount advanced out of the amount / fund received from the person (whose transactions accepted as not pertain to appellant) as per Table-1. As such, at the outset, it is submitted that the impugned addition made by the ld. AO on account of amount advanced to Shri Ram Chandra Saini as alleged unexplained money under section 69A of the IT Act is wrong. Further, the ld. AO made addition for the reason that the assessee has not furnished the names, address and PAN of such persons tabulated in Table No. 2 at page no. 15 of 30 is also grossly wrong and bad in law. As in this case, there was no borrowing by the assessee from Shri Ram Chandra Saini but the money was advanced to Shri Ram Chandra Saini. However, ld. AO made the addition drawing an incorrect and wrong inference that money was advanced by Shri Ram Chandra Saini to the appellant. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned addition made by the ld. AO is unsustainable and deserves to be deleted. 32 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 5(vii) The appellant with reference to his claim that no addition can be made in the hands of the middle man / broker on account of loan transactions carried out by him in his said capacity submit that at the most, the income for providing the said services can be a brokerage income and not loan(s) amount reliance is placed. (1) Shiv Prakash Bajaj vs. DCIT In ITA No. 368/JP/2018 (Jaipur Tribunal) Held - …Therefore, the assessee being a broker cannot be held liable to pay tax on an income which does not arise or belong to the assessee. At the most, the income for providing the service as a broker can be taxed in the hands of the assessee for the transaction of loan which the assessee has already offered to tax as part of the surrendered income. (2) Principal CIT vs. Alag Securities (P) Ltd. (2020) 117 taxmann.com 292 (Bombay) Held – …. Tribunal, however, held that only amount of commission received by assessee from its customers was liable to be added to assessee’s taxable income. (3) Saket M. Jain (HUF) vs. The PCIT-2 In ITA No. 579/Ahd/2019 (Ahmedabad) Held – ……Thus, in our considered view the entire amount of sales cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash credit. At the most, the amount of income generated by the assessee, in the capacity of acting as a conduit, i.e. commission on such entries provided by it which may be brought to tax. Thus the entire amount of sales cannot be treated as income of the assessee. Hence, the order of the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act is not sustainable in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we quash the same. As per above facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that the impugned addition of Rs. 50,000/- made by the ld. AO on account of alleged unexplained money may very kindly be deleted. 6. Ground No. 3 6(i) The third ground of appeal is challenging, the charging of tax by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act on account of alleged cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- towards purchase of a flat and Rs. 50,000/- on account of alleged loan received from Shri Ram Chandra Saini. In this connection, it is submitted that the additions made are wrong and bad in law and no income is assessable under section 69 and 69A of the Act, 1961. Thus, the action of the ld. AO is not in accordance with the provisions of law and the same deserves to be cancelled. 7. Ground No. 4 This ground of the appeal is a general ground and no adjudication is required. The assessee prays accordingly. 33 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 13. In addition to the above written submission, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee also submitted following brief synopsis; The above appeal has been filed by the appellant against the appeal order dated 07.12.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur in appeal No. 1346/2019-20. The appellant has raised following grounds of appeal before your honour :- 1 An addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- 1(i) The addition has been made on account of alleged unexplained investment made in purchase of residential flat at Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur 1(ii) The addition is based on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) with reference to an agreement to sale executed between Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat, Shri Satpal Singh and Shri Jaipal Singh. 1(iii) The said agreement was solely a notional / symbolic agreement only and was executed to honour the terms of mutual settlement in between Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat, Shri Satpal Singh and Shri Jaipal Singh to vacate the tenanted property and also to withdraw a civil suit pending before the Hon’ble Court regarding vacation of the property. 1(iv) Copy of the following documents have been filed in paper book:- (a) Affidavit of Shri Satpal Singh, Page No. 76 (b) Copy of application filed before the Addl. District and Session Judge – 7, Jaipur Mahanagar, Jaipur page No. 74 & 75. 1(v) Addition of Rs. 50,000/- on account of advance made to Shri Ram Chandra Saini. 2(i) The ld. AO made addition for the reason that “Assessee neither furnished their names, address and PAN Number of such persons nor did assessee produce such person”. The ld. AO further given a finding that “it is apparent onus proves the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee, and he failed to discharge it”. Relying on this theory, the learned AO tabulated assessment year wise alleged unexplained transactions being a money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 at page No. 17 and 18 of the assessment order. 2(ii) It is evident from the assessment order that the appellant has not borrowed the money from the above said person but he advance the said money to Shri Ram Chandra Saini. Thus, the requirement to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness is inapplicable. The source of said amount advance has been mentioned below the noting of advances made vide page No. 61 of the seized diary and Page No. 7 of Paper Book. The said source is mentioned as money available by (eklhlk). The transaction of Mausi Sa is accepted as not pertaining by the ld. AO. Table No.1, Sr. No. 16 at Page No. 19 of the assessment order. 34 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 2(iii) In the cash flow statement, there is a receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 14.10.2012 from Mousi Sa and out of the said receipt Rs. 1,00,000/- was advanced to Shri Bhanu Pratap and Rs. 50,000/- was advanced to Shri Ram Chandra Saini vide Paper Book page No. 1. 14. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence & records: Master Paper Book 35 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT Paper book S. No. Particulars of Documents Page No. 1 Copy of seized paper no. 61 of Exhibit-3, Annexure-AS and relevant page of cash flow chart highlighting the relevant entry. 1-7 2 Copy of agreement to purchase of residential flat at Ground Floor, Plot No. 35, Chitragupta Nagar-1, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur seized during the course of search vide page No. 43-46 of Exhibit No. 1 of Exhibit-1, Annexure-AS. 8-10 3 Copy of registered sale deed(s) (Chain documents) of property situated at Plot No. 25, Chitragupta Nagar-1, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur 11-73 4 Copy of application dated 11.10.2013 filed before the court to withdraw the civil suit. 74-76 5 Copy of application filed for supply of photo copy of statement of Shri Chotu Ram Kumawat and Radheyshyam Choudhary 77 15. Ld. AR of the assessee in support of the contention raised also relied upon the following case laws for all the years : S. No. Name of Cases/Statement Name of Court Date of order Page No. 1 Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Jeet Construction Company Supreme Court of India 20.11.2020 1-4 2 Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax High Court of Gujarat 12.07.2001 5-8 3 Smt. Suraj Kanwar Devra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Udaipur ITAT Jodhpur Bench 23.11.2021 9-33 15.1 The ld. AR of the assessee filed a chart explaining issue of each year and the brief note on the issue. The said common submission reads as under : 36 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 37 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 38 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 39 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 16. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee is a salaried person. Since, the address provided by Shri Ashok Singh, where the assessee leaves presently, searched team asked about Shri Ashok Singh but he was not residing there. But since the search was for the premises, the assessee was covered. In the search one diary was found and one agreement was found. The fact was that the assessee was tenant and to vacate the premises and for the safety of the assessee an agreement was prepared in the beginning so as to have the confirmed allotment of the flat the same was prepared at rounded figure and ultimate after negotiating the price when the flat become ready the same were registered in the name of the assessee by paying the amount and the source of the said purchase of flat is already explained at the time of the assessment proceeding to the ld. 40 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT AO. Vide paper book page 168 and 168 assessee provided the proof that there was civil case for the property and thereby the said agreement was entered as safety and it was not real transaction and the assessee has not paid any on money. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the agreement is in the name of the two person, assessee and his brother but the amount was added in the hands of the assessee only. Ld. AO has not made independent enquiry as to the facts placed on record. As regards the addition based on the diary ld. AO made two table for one he has accepted the contention of the assessee and for the table -2 entries made the addition. The said addition is also required to be deleted as the assessee was a merely middle men and has provided all the details and it is proved by the assessee that he was merely a middlemen and therefore, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed chart on the second issue of loan addition. 17. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the finding recorded in the orders of the lower authority. As regards the addition of Rs. 40 lac the same has been made based on the document found during the search and therefore, the contention that the assessee has not paid consideration cannot be believed. As regards the loan addition lower authority already 41 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT deleted the addition where all the details were submitted and sustained only those addition where the assessee has not submitted the details. 18. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. In this appeal vide ground no.1 the assessee challenges the finding of the ld. CIT(A) while sustaining the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by the ld AO to the income of the assessee- appellant on account of alleged on-money paid by him from undisclosed sources for purchase of flat at Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur based on agreement for purchases of said flat. The fact related to the dispute are that a sale agreement dated 03-11-2012 found and seized as page numbers 43 to 46 of Exhibit-1 of Annexure \"AS\". The aforesaid seized agreement has been executed between Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat (seller) and Shri Satyapal Singh and Shri Jaipal Singh (purchasers) on 03.11.2012 for sale of flat at ground floor at plot No.35, Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur for sale consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/-. In the agreement, it is duly mentioned that the seller has received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash from the purchaser. The aforesaid sale agreement was subsequently registered by the assessee vide a conveyance deed dated 11-10-2013 wherein the sale consideration is reported at Rs. 21,25,000/-. The sale consideration is reported to be paid through cheque no. 11-4284 dated 10/10/2013 amounting to Rs. 17,00,000/ 42 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT drawn on Allahabad Bank, Tonk Road, Jaipur and Rs. 4,25,000/- is reported to have been paid in cash. During the course of search action the statement of the assessee was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) wherein the assessee was asked to explain the reason for difference in sale consideration of flat at Ground Floor, in Plot No. 35, Chitragupt Nagari, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur sale agreement dated 03.11.2012 and registered sale deed dated 11.10.2013 executed by him with Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat, In reply the assessee has categorically stated that Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat is a builder and he has constructed total 6 flats in Plot No: 34 & 35. Chitragupt Nagar, Jaipur and all the flats have been sold at the rate of Rs. 40 lacs per flat. He has further admitted that the registered sale deeds were executed at the DLC rate, therefore, there is a difference in consideration reported in sale agreement & registered sale deed. In view of the sale agreement seized and statement of the assessee it is evident that the assessee has paid Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash to the builder as consideration of aforesaid flat. Accordingly, the detailed show caused notice was issued to the assessee on 16-09-2019 wherein he was requested to explain the source of payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- failing to which he further show caused why the said amount should not be considered as unexplained investment. In reply to the aforesaid SCN the assessee filed a 43 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT written reply, wherein he submitted that the agreement was executed to obtain residential home loan from the bank. He further claimed that when the agreement was executed the building was under construction no person will advance full consideration in agreement. The reply of the assessee was considered by the ld. AO but not found tenable for the reason that the argument of the assessee that the agreement was executed to obtained bank loan is totally misplaced as bank advance loan to any person based on his credit score. In the instant case the assessee is the Government employee, and bank can determined his credit score from his salary slip/form-16. The assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence as such which can substantiate that no cash amount was paid whereas in the seized sale agreement it has been categorically mentioned that the seller has received Rs. 40,00,000/- from the assessee in cash. Further, the statement of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat recorded u/s 131 of the Act dated 11-12-2017 wherein at question no. 12 he acknowledges the sale agreement under consideration which clearly established the sanctity of the seized sale agreement and the cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- is also found to be true. Based on that the assessee has purchased a flat under consideration and made cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- vide an agreement which has not been reported in the subsequent sale deed. The 44 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- is 'on-money' paid by the assessee to purchase the aforesaid flat. Since the assessee could not explain the source of that investment the same was treated as unexplained investment of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act and a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- was added back to the total income of the assessee. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the view of the ld. AO stating that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence as such which can substantiate that no cash amount was paid whereas in the seized sale agreement it has been categorically mentioned that the seller has received Rs. 40,00,000/- from the assessee in cash. Registration of the property has been done after one year in Oct. 2013 whereas the agreement in question is executed on 03-11-2012. It is clearly mentioned in the agreement of November 2012 that payment in cash of Rs. 40 lakhs have already been made between the parties. As regards the submission of the assessee-appellant that only half of the alleged cash could be added in the hands of the appellant because half of the share pertained to Shri satyapal Singh was not considered as it has not been shown that this is not an afterthought and that it was the factual claim of the appellant since beginning. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that in October 2013 Sri Satyapal Singh has entered into registered agreement of purchase with 45 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT respect to the first floor of the building whereas in the same month in October 2013 Shri Jaipal Singh the appellant has entered in registered agreement of purchase with respect to the ground floor which is the property in the agreement which has been seized and which agreement pertains to November 2012 wherein there is mention of payment Rs 40 lakhs in cash. Since ultimately the property has been registered in the names of Shri Jaipal Singh the appellant and he is the beneficiary and there is no other circumstantial or other evidence on record that the payment was made half and half by two parties and thus this claim was not considered by the ld. CIT(A). Before us the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the submission made on 22.07.2024. When the matter was listed before the bench after the conclusion of the argument ld. DR sought time to seek the report of the ld. AO on the contention raised by the assessee by filling written submission and the paper book. Before us the ld. AR of the assessee, relying on the written submission and a paper book filed based on the contention raised submitted that the assessee-appellant and his brother Shri Satpal were tenant for more than 25 years and the purchase agreement of the flat was made as security of withdrawal of the civil suit, pending before the Hon’ble Civil Court for vacation of the house by land lord. Complete supporting 46 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT documentary evidence has been submitted in a paper book and thereby contended that; 4(i) The first ground of appeal is challenging, the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made on account of alleged cash paid in purchase of residential flat at Chitragupt Nagar, Imiliwala Phatak, Jaipur. The brief undisputed facts of the above said transaction as submitted before the Hon’ble lower authority are as follows :- 4(i)(a) One Shri Satyapal Singh and the appellant Shri Jaipal Singh were tenants in the residential house situated at 35, Chitragupt Nagar–I, Imiliwala Phatak, Jaipur since the year 1990-2000. 4(i)(b) The said residential house was owned by Smt. Vidhya Mathur W/o Shri Basant Bihari Mathur 4(i)(c) In October, 2012, Smt. Vidhya Mathur sold the said house by executing a registered sale deed to Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat. 4(i)(d) Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat is a contractor and engaged in building construction activities i.e. constructing the Flats, Villas, etc. and selling to the prospective buyers. He purchased the said house to construct residential flats to sell thereof to the prospective buyers. 4(i)(e) Since, Shri Satyapal Singh and the appellant both were tenants and there was ongoing litigation in between the previous owner Smt. Vidhya Mathur and the above referred tenants since the year 2006. The said litigation was pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Civil Court, Jaipur (Raj.) 4(i)(f) As Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat purchased the house for construction of residential flats and sale thereof. Accordingly, as a prudent business man policy to carry on smooth / hassle free business activities, he approached to Shri Satyapal Singh and the appellant to settle the said dispute regarding vacation of tenanted house out of court. 4(i)(g) After negotiation in between the above referred concerned parties, it was agreed that Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat will allot / sale a ground floor flat for a total consideration of Rs. 21,25,000/- to the tenants i.e. Shri Satyapal Singh and appellant Shri Jaipal Singh and the tenants shall withdraw the civil suit petition. 4(i)(h) It was a fact that in connection of flats about 1 to 2 years time would be taken and as such to protect the interest, to honour and make binding the mutually agreed terms of the settlement. It was mutually agreed in between both the parties that an agreement to Sale-cum-Memorandum of Understanding should be executed for the said residential flat and the tenants will withdrew the civil suit pending before the Hon’ble Civil Court. 4(i)(i) As per above said agreed terms of the settlement, an unregistered (kachha) agreement-cum-MoU was executed on 03.11.2012 by and amongst Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat, Shri Satyapal Singh and appellant Shri Jaipal Singh mentioning therein total sale consideration at Rs. 40,00,000/-. Further to avoid 47 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT future disputes and more secure the mutually agreed terms, the entire sale consideration was mentioned / shown in the agreement as paid in cash. 4(i)(j) The said whole exercise was exclusively done for the purpose of ensuring the compliance of the terms of settlement arrived in between tenants and the new owner of the house. Because the pending litigation with the Hon’ble Civil Court has to be withdrawn. Thus, in simple terms, it can be submitted that only to protect the interest of the tenants, the said symbolical / notional agreement to sale was executed. A copy of application submitted before the Hon’ble Civil Court to withdraw the civil suit is enclosed. 4(i)(k) It is also a fact that the appellant and Shri Satyapal Singh, co-tenant both are petty means persons and were absolutely unable to pay the agreed purchase consideration of the residential flat and accordingly, the said agreement to Sale- cum-MoU was also used for bank loan purposes. Because as per banker(s) policy, only part of the amount is being advanced and not the full consideration. 4(i)(l) It is submitted that the statement of the appellant u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961 was recorded under force and into making depositions to suit the IT department. Further as evident from the statement itself that the appellant has not stated / admitted that he paid Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash to Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat. A copy of relevant part of the said statement is appearing at top of page No. 4 of the assessment order. However, for ready reference, the said relevant part is reproduced herein below :- “ iz’u 15 % vkius Plot No. 35 ij fufeZr tks ¶ySV fp=xqIr uxj t;iqj esa Jh NksVw jke dqekor ls [kjhnk gS mldk bdjkj ukek vkids vkSj NksVw jke ds chp fnukad 03-11-2012 dks fy[kk x;k gS] 100 :- ds stamp paper ij fy[kk x;k gSA ftlesas NksVw jke dqekor us :- 40]00]000@& vkils izkIr djuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA ijUrq fnukad 11-10-2013 dks tks foØ; i= iathd`r fd;k x;k gS mlesa ¶ySV flQZ :- 21]25]000@& esa foØ; djuk crk;k x;k gS d`i;k fLFkfr Li\"V djs A mRrj % NksVw jke dqekor ,d Builder gS mlus Plot No. 34 o 35 fp=xqIr uxj] t;iqj esa dqy 6 ¶ySV cuk,a gS rFkk lHkh ¶ySVks dks yxHkx 40 yk[k izfr ¶ySV ds vkl&ikl cspk gS ijUrq jkftLVªh;kW lHkh esa DLC rate ls djokbZ gS A esjs ekeys esa Hkh jftLVªh DLC rate ls djokbZ gSA vr% bdjkjukes dh jkf’k ,oa jftLVªh dh jkf’k esa vUrj vk jgk gSA ” 4(i)(m)It is also learnt from the assessment order that a statement of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat was also recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 11.12.2017 and he allegedly confirmed the agreement to sale under consideration. However, the ld. AO neither informed about the said statement nor a copy thereof was supplied to appellant. Thus, the impugned proceeding has been conducted behind the back of the appellant and the same are also without providing any opportunity to cross- examine Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat. In this connection, it is submitted that the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings, filed an application on 06.07.2023 to the ld. AO to supply a copy of statements of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat and Shri Radhey Shyam Choudhary recorded during the post search proceedings. But, till today no copy of the said statements have been supplied to the appellant. A certified copy having acknowledgment of filing the said application with the ld. AO is enclosed herewith. Thus, the action of the learned AO is 48 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT completely against the settled legal position on the issue and also against the principle of natural justice refer M/s Andman Timber Industries - the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Andman Timber Industries held that without giving opportunity of cross examination the assessment completed is a nullity. Therefore, the statement of witness cannot be sole basis of the assessment without given an opportunity of cross examination and consequently it is a serious flaw which renders the assessment order a nullity. 4(i)(n) As per above facts and circumstances of the case, it is again submitted that the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made by the ld. AO is based on presumption, surmises and conjectures only without bringing on record any cogent material and also any undisclosed sources of alleged investment of Rs. 40,00,000/- made in cash by the appellant and Shri Satyapal Singh. The submissions are also supported by the assessment order itself that appellant is only having petty income of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the Government of Rajasthan and Shri Satyapal Singh is a small agriculturist carrying agricultural activity at his native place. In support of this fact the appellant also places on record that he got noted the entire transaction in his above referred seized diary and in the said diary there is no noting about the above said alleged cash payment for purchase of the residential flat. It is further submitted that the appellant purchased the residential flat for Rs. 21,25,000/- and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- were paid from the bank loan and Rs. 4,25,000/- out of his accumulated past year savings from salary income. Further, now it is a settled position of law that no addition can be made on the basis of seized document indicating purchase of property by assessee because such document(s) is not conclusive proof of On Money transaction. Ref. CIT vs. Prem Prakash Nagpal, 40 taxmann.com 153 and also in case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 103 Taxman 382 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The use of the word “may” indicates that the intention of the Parliament in enacting section 69 was to confer a discretion on the AO in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee and the AO is not obliged to treat such source of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory. The question whether the source of the investment should be treated as income or not under section 69 has to be considered in the light of the facts of each case.” In view of the above facts and circumstances of appellant further submits that he made no unexplained alleged investment of Rs. 40,00,000/- in purchase of the flat. It is prayed that the impugned addition made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this account deserves to be deleted. 19. The above contention raised with supporting evidence has not been controverted by the ld. AO through the ld. DR and there is no contrary 49 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT finding of the lower authority to the submission so made. The document so relied upon was already placed on record by the assessee and therefore, when the assessee on oath submitted the fact that they were tenants and were withdrawing the case the agreement was not proved wrong. The bench noted that sale agreement dated 03.11.2012 was found and seized.( page 24 paper book). This agreement was between Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat (Seller) and Shri Satyapal Singh (Brother of the assessee) and Shri Jaipal Singh (assessee). This deed itself confirms the following facts: a) Assessee and his brother were tenant of the property for last 25 years. The property was owned by Shri Basant Bihari Lal Mathur. b) They have vacated the possession of the land after the legal heirs of the building sold the property to Shri Chhotu Ram Kumavat. c) The dispute were going on and by assessee and his brother with that of Shri Basant Biharilal and not with Chhotu Ram Kumawat. d) Thus, the agreement covers the three party, tenant, owner and purchase of the property. Here it is hard to believe that the tenant vacant the property and give money therefore it is not unexplained investment of the assessee. It is not the claim of the revenue that the document registered is not at the prevailing DLC rate and therefore, the unexplained investment to the extent of Rs. 40 lac 50 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT cannot be believed to be made by the assessee because all these facts of vacating the premises, its possession of 25 years and the seller sales the property in consent of the tenant. e) The court case withdrawal application was given after the agreement and thus it is not clear as to the money has been given by the legal heirs of Shri Basant Biharilal Mathur to Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat or by the assessee. f) The agreement is not registered. g) Ld. AO has not examined the legal heirs of the late Shri Basant Biharilal Mathur as to the payment of money in consideration of the vacation of land in favour of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumavat 20. Based on the above facts it is not clearly established that the assessee while vacating the possession of the property occupied gives the money for purchase of flat is against the common sense and therefore, the ld. AO has made the addition without bringing correct facts on record and therefore, we do not see any merit to sustain the addition and therefore, we direct the ld. AO to delete that addition. Based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 21. Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee challenges the addition of Rs. 50,000/- made by the AO as income of the assessee- appellant on the 51 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT basis of exhibit 2 and 3 of seized Annexure AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person was not proved. The bench noted that in this year Rs. 50,000/- was added as income of the assessee stating that it is unexplained money of the assessee by invoking the provision of section 69A of the Act. The said provision of the act reads as under Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. The above addition consist of entry recorded at page 37 of the diary wherein it is written that on 05.11.2012 the assessee has given money of Rs. 50,000 to Shri Ramchandra Saini. Thus, the advance of loan given by the assessee cannot be termed as unexplained money as per the above definition but can be termed as unexplained money. Therefore, the invocation of the section while making the addition was wrong. Not only that it is not the case of section 69 of the Act as the source of advance has been noted down along with the noting of the advance made at page no. 61 of the seized diary and internal page 7 of the paper book. The amount was 52 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT advanced out of the money received from Mausi sa has been accepted by the ld. AO as not pertaining to the appellant-assessee vide Table 1, Sr. no. 16 and page no. 19 of the assessment order. As per cash flow statement there was a receipt of Rs. 2 lac on 14.12.2012 from Mausi sa and out this amount, Rs. 1 lac was advanced to Shri Bhanu Pratap and Rs. 50,000 to Shri Ram Chandra Saini. Considering the discussion on facts we see no reason to sustain the addition and therefore, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. Based on this observation, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 22. Ground no. 3 raised by the assessee challenges the charging of tax as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act on the additions made. Since we have directed to delete those additions on merits this ground becomes academic. Ground no. 4 being general does not require any adjudication. In terms of these observations, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 115/JP/2024 is allowed. 23. Now we deal with the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 116/JP/2024 for the assessment year 2014-15. Since the facts of the case are already discussed above we directly deal with the grounds of appeal raised by the 53 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT assessee. In this appeal vide ground no. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are not pressed and therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 24. Now coming to the solitary ground left in this appeal thereby challenging the finding of the ld. CIT(A) confirming addition of Rs. 29,50,000/- made by the AO the income of the appellant on the basis of exhibit 2 and 3 of seized Ann. AS allegedly on the ground that identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the concerned person was not proved. The bench noted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed this ground of appeal by observing as under : “7.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- I have decided the similar issue in the case of the appellant for the assessment year 2013-14 where the addition made by the ld. AO has been upheld. Facts of the present appeal being pari-materia with the facts of the appeal in the assessment year 2013-14 the findings of the appeal order in the case of assessment year 2013-14 will apply mutatis-mutandis to the present appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 and it is held accordingly. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed.” As is evident from the above observation that the contention raised by the assessee for addition of Rs. 29,50,000 has not been dealt with and has decided considering the earlier years observation. 54 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 25. Here it is necessary to take note of the facts as to why the ld. AO made the addition. The brief facts as culled out from the assessment order is that while search conducted by the revenue a diary and some loose papers containing cash / cheque loan receipts and payments were found which were seized and inventoried as Annexure AS Exhibit – 2 & 3. On perusal of seized annexure it was found that transaction of cash / cheque loan in the name of the various persons were noted along with details of interest. Therefore, vide notice dated 16.09.2019 assessee was asked to explain the nature of transactions recorded on these pages, assessee was asked to produce / provide where abouts of persons whose name was found recorded in seized annexure. In the assessment proceeding the assessee provides details and confirmation. Ld. AO that details, documents and statement made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings were carefully observed, wherefrom he has summarized that out of total transactions found recorded in the seized Annexure AS Exhibit – 2 & 3 for part transactions assessee claimed that he acted merely as middlemen and for the remaining part assessee admitted that the transactions pertained to him. To further summarize, two tables were made table 1 wherein transactions not related to assessee and table 2 transactions related to the assessee were made by 55 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT the ld. AO. The ld. AO further went on to observe that transactions noted against the person appearing in table one are not related to him, assessee furnished their affidavit permanent account number and identity proof. In order to verify the claim of the assessee PAN number so furnished by the assessee were verified on ITBA portal and such pan found active. Further to this as claimed by assessee ld. AO recorded a statement of Shri Ram Sharam son of Shri M L Sharma was recorded under section 131 on 21.11 2017 wherein he admitted that he entered into transaction with Shri Bhanupratap through assessee and assessee acted as merely middleman considering that fact he has not made any addition of those transaction reported in table one except in case of Shri Naval Kishore Sharma as the assessee has not furnished the pan number in that case. Now for the remaining transaction tabulated in Table 2 the assessee neither furnished their names address and permanent account number of such person nor did assessee produce such person. Further, when the assessee was asked about such transactions assessee admitted that such transactions were entered by him to meet his household expenditure. In that case it is responsibility of the assessee to prove the source along with the identity genuineness and credit worthiness which ld. AO notes that the assessee has not discharged. In the light of these fact the ld. AO tabulated 56 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT those transaction for all the years starting from A. Y. 2013-14 to 2018-19. Accordingly for the year under consideration the transactions which are disputed before us are five as per the table appearing at page 16 of the assessment order. As is evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A) he has not given his finding separately the bench decided to consider the explanation given by the assessee as this paper book and explanation were also made available to the ld. AO through ld. DR and there is no contra submission so far made before the bench. As there were five entries which were disputed we discuss one by one. The four-transaction listed at page 33 of the seized material and relates to Shri Krishan Kant Sanadhya. Out of four transactions three were dated 07.08.2013 wherein considering the submission of the assessee and explanation of the assessee, the bench noted that on 07.08.2013 one transaction Rs. 10,00,000/- was given to Shri Krishan Kant (KK) the source of that money Rs. 5 lac from Shri Radhey Shyam Choudhary vide entry no. 2 at the same page paper book page 128 and Rs. 5 lac returned back from Shri S. Janiyani vide internal page 31 of seized diary paper book page 126. The other two entries denotes the calculation of source of 10 lac given as it 57 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT evident from the same page. The entry dated 31.08.2013 listed at page 33 same page is returned back money and therefore both transaction cannot be added again when the source is explained by the assessee. Now the left-over entry relates to Shri Nawal Ji dated 02.09.2013 for an amount of Rs. 2 lac. The source of that money already written on that page received from Shri vide entry no. 2 at page 35 ( paper book page 130). Thus, when the ld. AO already observed that the assessee is acting middle money he has identified the source from where money comes and goes the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee and therefore, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 29,50,000/- made in the year under consideration. Based on this observation ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 26. Ground no. 4 raised by the assessee charge of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act which is consequential in nature and ground no 5 being general does not require our adjudication. Based on this observation appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 116/JP/2024 stands partly allowed. 58 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 27. Now coming to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 117/JP/2024. In this appeal vide ground no. 1 it would be appropriate to reiterate herein below the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue : “5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- The appellant has challenged addition of Rs. 21,25,000/- made on account of investment in land through a sale agreement made in November 2014 which includes cash payment of Rs. 19,25,000/-, as an unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. In his submission appellant has made contention that He was acting as a middleman in dealing with sale transaction (total agreed sale consideration was Rs. 1,32,51,000/-) of an agricultural land situated at village Saroopgarh, Tehsil Hindoli, Bundi. The facts of the case are that one Shri Nirmal Singh Anand S/o Dileep Singh Anand owned the above said agricultural land vide Khasra No. 678 and 821/237. M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt Ltd. (whose directors are known to the appellant) were interested to buy the said land. On the request of M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt. Ltd. an agreement to purchase was made through the appellant although the appellant was not a Director of the said company in the month of November, 2014, 5.3 The appellant has submitted the fact that the agricultural land owner Shri Nirmal Singh Anand could not fulfill the terms of the agreement and ultimately the prospective buyer M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt. Ltd. refused to purchase the said land. The appellant further made contention that he has not paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by cheque to Shri Nirmal Singh Anand. The appellant further submitted that the entire amount of Rs. 21,11,000/- was paid in cash by Shri Hari Narain Jat (Rs. 10,11,000/-1, Shri Ram Gopal Meena (Rs. 6,00,000/-) and Shri Satyapal Singh (Rs. 5,00,000/-). Further, the appellant made contention that when the buyer M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt. Ltd. refused to purchase the land and accordingly the appellant searched a new buyer, namely, Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma, Shri Dhirendra Sharma, and Shri Lokendra Sharma. A copy of the Registered Sale Deed made and executed in between Shri Nirmal Singh Anand and the above said buyers along with copy of Revenue Jamabandi are enclosed herewith. Further, the amount originally paid by the middleman Shri Hari Narain Jat, Shri Ram Gopal Meena and Shri Satyapal Singh who were witnesses along with Shri Dhirendra Sharma was settled by them 59 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT before Registration of the document and the appellant was not a concerned person of the said amount adjusted by and between them because he has not paid a single penny out of Rs. 21,11,000/- paid as per the Agreement executed through the appellant as a middleman. 5.4 The Id. AO has given his findings that a sale agreement dated 19-11-2014 found and seized as page numbers 5 to 9 of Exhibit-1 of Annexure \"AS\" The aforesaid seized agreement has been executed between Shri Nirmal Singh Anand s/o Shri Dilip Singh Anand, Petchki Bawdi, Hindoli, Bundi )seller (and the assessee Shri Jaipal Singh so Shri Girvar Singh)purchaser (for sale of agricultural land situated at Khasra No 67% 821/237 Village-Swaroopgarh, Tehsil-Hindoli, Bundi for sale consideration of Rs. 1,32,51,000/-. The agreement reveals that, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is stated to have been transferred through bank to the account of the seller and a sum of Rs. 19,11,000/- was paid in cash to the seller by the assessee Shri Jaipal Singh. As per the sale agreement a sum of Rs. 50 lacs out of the remaining amount was agreed to be paid within two months from date of sale agreement and remaining amount was to be paid within four months from date of agreement. Further, on the first page of this agreement the details of payment received from Indian Bank account, New Delhi has been found noted and the scan of the same is extracted in the assessment order. Dates of the payment are not recorded and appear to be post dated cheques. During the course of search proceedings, statement of the assessee Shri Jaipal Singh was recorded on oath U/s 132(4) of the LT Act, 1961 and vide question 11 of his statement he was asked to explain about the sale agreement executed by him with Shri Nirmal Singh Anand and the amount paid by him in pursuance of this agreement In reply, he has stated that he had given only a sum of Rs. 21,11,000/- and subsequently he sold this property to the owner of M/s Harisar Pvt Ltd., Shri Dhirendra Sharma and that the entire sale consideration was paid by them to the original land owner. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant came out with a completely new story and in reply to the aforesaid SCN the assessee filed a written reply wherein he submitted that the aforesaid sale agreement dated November 2014 could not be executed as the seller could not fulfilled some condition hence M/s Shri Harisar Pvt. Ltd. did not purchase the land. He further claimed that he acted as a middle man only and no payment was made by him as such as mentioned in the sale agreement. The assessee further claimed that the land under consideration is registered in favour of another person namely Shri Naresh Kumar, Dhirendra Sharma, Lokendra Sharma residence Lovely Home Apartment, Plot No.5, Delhi. The assessee further claimed that the amount reported in sale agreement including cash component was arranged by the prospective buyers i.e. M/s Harisar Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ramgopal Meena and others. He also furnished affidavit of Shri Hari Narayan Jat, Shri Ramgopal Meena and Shri Satyapal Singh wherein it has been mentioned that the agreement was written in the name of Shri 60 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT Jaipal Singh as a purchaser since, he was local and known to the seller Shri Nirmal Singh. In these affidavit it has been also written that the cash amount was paid by these persons. The essential issue which rises in these appeals is two-fold:- Firstly, whether the appellant entered into the transaction of property i.e. he was having some interest in the property more than a mere agent/broker. Secondly, whether cash payment of Rs. 21,11,000 was done by the appellant or not? And consequently whether the claim of cash payment by Shri Hari Narayan Jat, Shri Ramgopal Meena and Shri Satyapal Singh is acceptable or not? 5.5 Whether the appellant entered into the purchase transaction of property or alternatively whether he was having some interest in the property more than a mere agent/broker:- The assessee has claimed that in the aforesaid sale agreement he has acted as a middle man only. However, from perusal of the agreement it is evident that the assessee Shri Jaipal Singh has been mentioned is a second party 'purchaser'. Further it is noticed that in the earlier years also the appellant has entered into similar kinds of agreement where the appellant is shown as purchaser and the property is subsequently sold by him through a similar kind of memoranda agreement and the final registration of the deed of property is made between the initial seller and the final buyer and no property registration deed is entered into by the appellant. It is a modus operandi of the appellant and which is also seen in other cases that when the buyer like appellant purchases a property for further reselling in such a case to avoid the stamp duty and other associated expenses and to avoid investment of full value of consideration they enter into memoranda agreement and make a part payment generally in cash and final property registration deed agreement is entered into between the initial seller and final buyer. In the assessment year under appeal also the appellant has entered into similar kind of agreement where the appellant is shown as the purchaser and such fact of mentioning in the agreement has not been controverted by the appellant. The assessee could not explain why these purported prospective buyer who paid whole consideration amounting to Rs. 21,25,000/- could not execute the sale agreement whereas they agreed to be a witness of sale agreement as evident from above scan of sale agreement. The assessee claimed that the agreement could not be executed in his name but subsequently other person based on Delhi purchased the land. However, the assessee failed to furnish any agreement or a document reveling that the agreement was subsequently cancelled and amount reported in the said agreement was returned back by the sellers to the assessee or purported prospective buyers. Further the final buyer and the initial buyer are related parties 61 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT and the change appears to be at the convenience of the buyer and not a cancellation of initial deal. During the search proceedings in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act the appellant has clearly explained on his own in the query raised by the officer i.e. the appellant himself has clarified that he had paid an amount of Rs. 21,11,000/- and later on the property was registered in the name of other buyer. The relevant parts are extracted in the assessment order. The appellant has not done effective retraction of this statement and has not proved this statement wrong as the statement itself is an evidence. Further, regarding the legal principles to examine the validity of the retraction of statement, guidance is taken from the following judgements:- 5.6 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) [26-05-2010] \"What is evidence? We shall examine it first. Evidence is defined in section 3 of the Evidence Act as follows: \"Evidence\": \"Evidence\" means and includes (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence, (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.\" The 'Court mentioned above in the definition of evidence would include all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence as defined under section 3. In section 3, Court is defined as follows: \"Court\"-\"Court\" includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence.\" A reading of section 131 of the Income-tax Act would show that the Assessing Officer is vested with the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of (a) discovery and inspection, (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath and (c) compelling the production of books of account and other documents. It is not disputed that the Assessing Officer recorded the statement of the partner of the respondent as well as the employees in exercise of the powers vested by him under section 131 of the Income-tax Act. The documents were also seized in exercise of such powers. In the above circumstance, the statement of the partner and the employees recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as the documents seized would come within the purview of the evidence under section 158BB of the Income-tax Act read with section 3 of the Evidence Act and section 131 of Income-tax Act. Therefore, such evidence would be admissible for the purpose of block assessment\" 62 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT ......................... ........................... \"9. It appears that the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion that the statements recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act has only very limited application without applying the mind. Explanation to section 132(4) of Income-tax Act would make it very clear that the evidence so collected would be relevant for all purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Income-tax Act. We find that a reading of section 132(4) with Explanation would be relevant. Hence we quote the same for easy reference: \"Section 132(4): The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act. Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the examination of any person under this sub-section may be not merely in respect of any books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of the search, but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act. Going by the above provision along with its Explanation we find that the statement of the partner and employees recorded and documents collected are relevant and admissible in respect of all matters for the purpose of any investigation connected with any proceedings under the Income-tax Act. Hence, we are of the opinion that the statements so recorded and documents collected by the Assessing Officer cannot be brushed aside as done by the appellate Tribunal stating that it is having only very limited application. We answer the question in favour of the appellant.\" Pr. CIT v. Shri Roshan Lal Sancheti [IT Appeal No 47 of 2018, dated 30-10-2018), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court This court in CIT, Bikaner v. Ravi Mathur, supra, which judgment has been relied by the ITAT in the present case, after considering catena of previous decisions, held that the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the IT Act have great evidentiary value and they cannot be discarded summarily and cryptic manner, by simply observing that the assessee retracted from his statement. One has to come to a definite finding as to the manner in which the retraction takes place. Such retraction should be made as soon as possible and immediately after such statement has been recorded by filing a complaint to the higher officials or otherwise brought to the notice of the higher officials by way of duly sworn affidavit or staternent supported by convincing evidence, stating that the earlier statement was recorded under pressure, coercion or compulsion. We deem it appropriate to reproduce para 15 of the said judgment, which reads 63 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT \"15. In our view, the statements recorded under section 132(4) have great evidentiary value and it cannot be discarded as in the instant case ITA No. 720/JP/2017 M/s Bannalal Jat Construction Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara v. ACIT, Central Circle-Ajmer by the Tribunal in a summary or in a cryptic manner. Statement recorded under section 132(4) cannot be discarded by simply observing that the assessee retracted the statements. One has to come to a definite finding as to the manner in which retraction takes place. On perusal of the facts noticed hereinbefore, we have noticed that while the statements were recorded at the time of search on 9-11-1995 and omwards but retraction. is almost after an year and that too when the assessment proceedings were being taken up in November 1996. We may observe that retraction should be made as soon as possible and immediately after such a statement has been recorded, either by filing a complaint to the higher officials or otherwise brought to the notice of the higher officials, either by way of a duly sworn affidavit or statements supported by convincing evidence through which an assessee could demonstrate that the statements initially recorded were under pressure/coercion and factually incorrect. In our view, retraction after a sufficient long gap or point of time, as in the instant case, loses its significance and is an afterthought. Once statements have been recorded on oath, duly signed, it has a great evidentiary value and it is normally presumed that whatever stuted at the time of recording of statements under section 132(4), are true and correct and brings out the correct picture, as by that time the assessee is uninfluenced by external agencies. Thus, whenever an assessee pleads that the statements have been obtained forcefully/by coercion/undue influence without material/contrary to the material, then it should be supported by strong evidence which we have observed hereinbefore. Once a statement is recorded under section 132(4), such a statement can be used as a strong evidence against the assessee in assessing the income, the burden lies on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statements are incorrect/wrong and that burden has to be discharged by an assessee at the earliest point of time and in the instant case we notice that the AO in the Assessment Order observes:- \"Regarding the amount of Rs. 44.285 lakhs, it is now contended that the statement u/s 132(4) was not correct and these amounts are in ITA No. 720/JP/2017 M/s Bannalal Jat Construction Pvt. Lid, Bhilwara v. ACIT, Central Circle-Ajmer thousands, not lakhs ie it is now attempted to retract from the statements made at the time of S & S operations\" Therefore, what we gather from the Assessment Order and on perusal of the above finding that the retraction was at the stage when the assessment proceedings were being finalized i.e. almost after a gup of more than an year. Such a so-called retraction in our view is no retraction in law and is simply a self- serving statement without any material. In the above judgement, inter-alia, the following arguments were taken on behalf of the assesse which stand rejected:- 64 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT \"Per contra, Mr. Prakul Khurana, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that the surrender was extracted from the assessee by income tax authorities during the search proceedings by use of coercion, duress and threat, which facts have been explained by the assessee in greater detail in the affidavit of retraction. It is argued that affidavits of Shri Suresh, Shri Ashok Jat and Shri Padam Kumar Jain were also filed, in which they have stated on oath that they did not own any land and therefore there did not arise any question of their accepting any advance from the assessee. Learned counsel referred to Instruction No. 286/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which acknowledges the fact that in certain cases, assessees are forced to disclosed the income during the course of search, seizure and survey operations. It was advised therein that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which lead to information of what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Department, and no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to any disclosed income. Circumstances in which the assessee had to give the statements under Section 132(4) and/or under Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on 20.05.2013, The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details the circumstances which led to surrender and how the surrender was extracted from the assessee from the aforesaid seven papers. The assessee has not brought any evidence on record to prove the facts mentioned by the assessee in the affidavit. The persons whose names were mentioned on the papers seized by the department have also denied any amount having been received by them from the assessee as advance against the sale of the properties/land. Learned counsel argued that the Assessing Officer has not given any reason in the assessment order as to why the explanation given by the assessee in the affidavit was not acceptable. Learned CIT(A) has given detailed reasons in respect of each deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Another, (1973) 91 ITR 0018 (SC) and submitted that the Supreme Court therein held that the admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given proper opportunity to show the correct state of affairs. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Narayan and Bros. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Investigation Circle, Salem, (2011) 13 Taxmann.com 49 (Madras) wherein retraction made during the course of assessment proceedings was entertained and relief was granted on merits of the explanation. It is argued that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of statements which are subsequently retracted even belatedly as held by Delhi High Court in CIT V. Sunil Aggarwal, (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 107 (Delhi). Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Escorts Heart Iristitute and 65 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT Research Centre Limited Vs. DCIT (TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC); Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ratan Corpn., (2005) 197 CTR 536 (Gujarat), The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer Vs. Shri Devendra Kumar Choudhary, 2-S-10 to 2-5-18, Basant Vihar, Bhilwara, ITA No. 828/JP/16; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni, (2007) 291, ITR, 172 (Raj.); Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat), Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand), Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh); Chetnaben J. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat).\" (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in this case further held as under:- \"In view of the law discussed above, it must be held that statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act and later confirmed in statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the assessee has retracted the same because such retraction ought to have been generally made within reasonable time or by filing complaint to superior authorities or otherwise brought to notice of the higher officials by filing duly sworn affidavit or statement supported by convincing evidence. Such a statement when recorded at two stages cannot be discarded summarily in cryptic manner by observing that the assessee in a belatedly filed affidavit has retracted from his statement. Such retraction is required to be made as soon as possible or immediately after the statement of the assessee was recorded. Duration of time when such retraction is made assumes significance and in the present case retraction has been made by the assessee after almost eight months to be precise, 237 days\", CIT, Bikaner vs. Shri Ravi Mathur (D.B. Income-tax Appeal No. 67/2002), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court \"Once a statement is recorded u/s 132(4), such a statement can be used as a strong evidence against the assessee in assessing the income, the burden lies on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statements are incorrect/wrong and that burden has to be discharged by an assessee at the earliest point of time.... such a so-called retraction in our view is no retraction in law and is simply a self-serving statement without any material\". Commissioner of Income-tax v. MAC Public Charitable Trust [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 368 (Madras) (31-10-2022] 66 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT \"63. The statements given to the Assessing officer under section 132 (4) have legal force. Unless the retractions are made within a short span of time, supported by affidavit swearing that the contents are incorrect and it was obtained under force, coercion and by lodging a complaint with higher officials, the same cannot be treated as retracted. This position laid down in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in Lekh Raj Dhunna (supra), Bochittar Singh (supra), Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT 1987 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. SC. Gupta (supra), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), O. Abdul Razak (supra).\" (Emphasis Supplied) Dr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 118 Taxman 252 (Allahabad) \"6. As regards the assessee's contention that the statement having been retracted, the Assessing Officer should have independently come to a conclusion that there was additional income as sought to be assessed and that there was no material to support that there was such income, this contention in our view is not correct. As held by the Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and, in fact, there was no additional income. This burden does not even seem to have been attempted to be discharged. Similarly, case P.K. Palwankar v. CGT [1979] 117 ITR 768 (MP) and CIT v. Mrs. Doris S. Luiz [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker.) on which also the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance, are of no help to the assessee. The Tribunal's order is concluded by findings of fact and in our view, no question of law arises. The applications are, accordingly, rejected.\" (Emphasis supplied) (In the above case the statement was recorded during survey. The above judgement is thus in the context of evidentiary value of statement recorded during survey.) Bachittar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana) \"6. It is not disputed that the statement was made by the assessee at the time of survey, which was retracted on May 28, 2003, and he did not take any further action for a period of more than two months. In such circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal that retraction from the earlier statement was not permissible, is definitely a possible view. The mere fact that some entries were made in a diary could not be held to be sufficient and conclusive to hold that the 67 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT statement carlier made was false. The assessee failed to produce books of account which may have been maintained during regular course of business or any other authentic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income. In the circumstances, the statement of the assessee could certainly be acted upon. 7. As regards the judgments in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) and Ester Industries Limited (2009) 316 ITR 260 (Delhi) relied upon by the assessee, even though it may be open to show an earlier statement or an entry to be erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the earlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157, we are of the view that even if the statement under section. 133A was not at par with the statement under section 132(4) and did not have that evidentiary value, such statement cannot be held to be irrelevant material so as to be ruled out of consideration in totality of facts, particularly in the absence of regular books of account. The Tribunal rightly followed the observations of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. SC. Gupta [2001] 248 ITR 782 and of this court in Surinder Kumar [2006] 282 ITR 78 (P&H). Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be held to be perverse or illegal.\" (Emphasis supplied) (In the above case the statement was recorded during survey. The above judgement is in the context of evidentiary value of statement recorded during survey). Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) (26-05-2010] 10. No person other than the partner of the respondent had in unambiguous terms stated that 20 per cent of the sales outturn is suppressed and only 80 per cent is recorded in the account books and it was the practice from the very beginning. So, it is just and appropriate to presume that there was uniform concealment of income in all assessment years during the block period. There is no material on record to show that the concealment of the sales out turn during any of the assessment year in the block period is lesser than the concealment detected under section 132 of the Income-tax Act. There is no whisper in the statement given by the partner of the respondent or any of the employees that there was any change of the rate of concealment in any year during the block period. No good reason was given to reject the above mentioned statement of the partner and employees recorded during search. Oral evidence was corroborated by the documentary evidence. So, it is just and appropriate to conclude that the concealment was same in all the years during the block period. Adding to that we find that when it is revealed in a search under section 132 of Income-tax Act that the assessee was following a particular method to conceal the income, it is just and reasonable to presume that the same practice was followed by the assessee throughout all the assessment years in the block period for the purpose of block assessment. Of course, the presumption is rebuttable. In such circumstances, it is for the assessee to 68 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT establish that the same method of concealment was not followed in the earlier assessment years in the block period or that the method of concealment detected was practiced only from a particular period. Here, regarding that, assessee had not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption or to come to a contrary finding. On the other hand, in unambiguous terms, it was stated by the partner of the respondent, who is in-charge of the bar that only 80 per cent of the sales outturn is recorded in the cash books and that is the practice followed from the beginning of the business. In the light of the above statement it is just and appropriate to presume that what is detected out in search is the practice followed throughout the block period to conceal the income. The first appellate authority adopted different slabs with no good explanation. We find that there is no material to adopt an assessment in any year during the block period at a lesser rate than that was assessed for the assessment year during which search was conducted. The appellate Tribunal was not justified in arriving a conclusion that there is no evidence regarding concealment of the income for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01. The procedure adopted by the first appellate authority in calculating the concealment of income at different rates is also without any supporting materials and against the intention of the Legislature expressed in Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act. Hence, we answer the question in favour of the appellant and find that the respondent is liable to be assessed during the block period at uniform rate.\" Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) [29-09-2010] \"15. Having crystalized legal position, it is now apt to delve on the factual situation of the present case. It is not in dispute that the assessee had made a statement under s. 132(4) of the Act whereby a surrender of Rs. 2,00,000 was made. Besides this, the assessee had admitted that he had carned commission from M/s P.M.S. Enterprises, Phagwara which was not disclosed in the return filed by him. The relevant portion of the statement reads as follows: \"I am selling agent of M/s P.M.S. Enterprises, Railway Road, Phagwara and get commission @ 2 per cent on the sales effected through me. I have no other source of income except interest from firm on deposit with the firm. My wife is a housewife and does tailoring work on a very small scale\" 16. Further, during search, certain sale documents were seized which bore the signatures of the assessee as well. The said documents depicted total sales of Rs. 4,92,03,005 as noticed earlier. 17. Thus, in view of sub-ss. (4) and (4A) of s. 132 of the Act, the AO was justified in drawing presumption against the assessee and had made addition of Rs. 9,00,000 in his income under s. 68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he had failed to displace. The assessee retracted from the said statement vide letters dt. 24th Nov., 1998 and 11th March, 1999 during the course of assessment 69 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT proceedings. However, no value could be attached thereto in the present case. In case the statement which was made by the assessee at the time of search and seizure was under pressure or due to coercion, the assessee could have retracted from the same at the earliest. No plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier. In such a situation, the authenticity of the statement by virtue of which surrender had been made at the time of search cannot be held to be bad. The Tribunal, thus, erred in concluding otherwise. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in reversing the order of the AO which was affirmed by the CIT(A) also.\" (Emphasis supplied) Kantilal C. Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Ahmedabad [2011] 14 taxmann.com 108 (Ahmedabad - ITAT)/[2012] 15 ITR(T) 62(Ahmedabad - Headnotes Section 132, read with section 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Search and seizure. Block periods 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1995 and 1-4-1995 to 12-12-1995 Whether section 132(4) enables an authorized officer to examine a person on oath and such a sworn statement made under section 132(4), thus can be used as an evidence under Act-Held, yes A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee whereby cash, jewellery, books of account and certain documents were found and seized Assessee on same day had given a statement under section 132(4) whereunder admissions with regard to unaccounted income of R. 6.20 lakhs were made Said unaccounted income consisted of marriage expenditure, unexplained household expenditure, etc. Assessing Officer, made additions in respect of unaccounted income of Rs. 6.20 lakhs admitted under section 132(4) However, after lapse of about nine months from date of admission, assessee through an affidavit sought to retract from statement made under section 132(4) on ground that (a) when there was no evidence or incriminatingmaterial discovered at time of search no addition could have been made merely on basis of statement under section 132(4) and (b) that impugned disclosure under admission was obtained forcefully and, hence, not binding Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) is an evidence by itself and any retraction contrary to that should be supported by strong evidence for demonstrating that earlier evidence recorded was under coercion Held, yes Whether assessee retracted from his earlier statement without demonstrating any evidence to establish that statement recorded earlier was incorrect; an allegation of compulsion or coercion must not be accepted merely on a statement if remained unsubstantiated Held, yes Whether, therefore, addition made on basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) was to be upheld Held, yes 5.7 Appellate has not produced any complaint lodged with higher officials supported by affidavit swearing that the contents of statement are incorrect and it was obtained under force, coercion. The statements in the retraction has to be duly supported with evidences. Similarly the allegations of coercion etc., if any, in 70 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT the retraction has to be supported with evidences. The appellant has not furnished evidences to prove the earlier evidence (statement u/s 132(4)) as incorrect as the statement u/s 132(4) itself is evidence (as per judgement in Kantilal C. Shah (supra)). 5.8 In view of the above discussion the claim of the appellant that he was acting merely a simply broker is not acceptable and the same is not as per records and is near an afterthought and the same is hereby rejected. The appellant was acting in his own capacity as is seen in earlier years also and as is also clarified by the appellant himself in the statement on oath and his interest in the property was more than the interest a broker would have in a property transaction being brokered by him. 5.9 Whether cash payment of Rs. 21,11,000 was done by the appellant or not? And consequently whether the claim of cash payment by Shri Hari Narayan Jat, Shri Ramgopal Meena and Shri Satyapal Singh is acceptable or not? The moot question arises whether the cash deposit was done by the appellant or the cash was deposited by other individuals. The Appellant himself has stated on oath in his statement that the payment deposit to the seller of property was done by him. Evidentially value of the statement on oath during the search action has been discussed in above paragraphs and the statement of the appellant constitutes an evidence which has not been negated and controverted with the other stronger evidence. Also that as per discussion in above paragraphs the appellant was not acting in a simple plane broker manners and he was having more interest in the property akin to the purchaser and thus the liability of payment also vested on him. It has been discussed in the pre-paragraphs that the property transaction was done by the appellant with his own interest and it was not a simplified case of broking and it has been accepted by the appellant in the statement on note that the payment was done by him in cash. The appeal has later on submitted affidavit of three people mentioning that the cash payment was done by them however the same is an afterthought as there was no reference to these people or these transaction in the statement recorded under oath during the search action and the affidavit of these people are also not notarized, not supported with identity proof etc. and also not supported with circumstantial evidences and the availability of cash with them and thus are self-serving documents. In the judgement in the case of Durai Murugan Kathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com 70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)[25-02-2022), Hon'ble Madras High Court upheld rejection of sworn statement in connection with deposit of cash. In the above case a person made a sworn statement and owned up the cash found in the premises of petitioner. Such third person also filed an application before the Settlement Commission. However such sworn statement was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. The matter was decided as per Preponderance of Probability. 71 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT Extract from headnotes Section 69A, read with sections 144A and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Cash) Assessment year 2019-20 Pursuant to cash seized at premises of employee of a trust where assessee was a trustee, a show cause notice was issued to assessee for addition of seized cash to assessee's total income as undisclosed income Cash had been recovered on packet with markings of municipal ward from where assessee was contesting elections Assessee filed an application seeking that directions be issued for completion of assessment under section 153A considering that cash recovered did not belong to assessee and a party worker 'S' had given a voluntary statement that cash belonged to him and had filed an application before ITSC for settlement and addition would result in double taxation in hands of assessee and person who claimed ownership of seized cash However, said application was rejected and order under section 153A was passed making addition to assessee's total income under section 69A- It was found that one 'S' had given statement that cash belonged to him for distribution to voters, however, statement of 'S' did not satisfy test of preponderance of probability, as, 'S' had not produced any records to substantiate that cash belonged to him and also, he was a man of insufficient means Further, show cause notice also indicated that 'S' had not filed any income tax returns to justify his version Moreover, documents pertaining to college/trust of assessee found along with seized cash indicated that cash belonged to assessee which was not disclosed by assessee in his regular return Whether therefore, since preponderance of probabilities indicated that seized cash was undisclosed income of assessee, additions under section 69A to assessee's income were justified - Held, yes (Paras 49 to 541 Relevant paras are extracted below:- “49. The statement of Mr.S.Srinivasan claiming that the cash belonged to him does not satisfy the test of preponderance of probability that the cash indeed belongs to him. Mr.S. Srinivasan has not produced any records to substantiate that the cash belonged to him. The show cause notice also indicates that Mr.S.Srinivasan has not filed any income tax returns to justify his version. Mr.Srinivasan has also not given any satisfactory explanation to substantiate his claim. On the other hand, there is a preponderance of probability that the cash belonged to the petitioner. 50. Since preponderance of probability indicate that the seized cash was an undisclosed income of the petitioner and was kept at the residence of Mr.Damodaran and Mrs. Vimala Damodaran by the petitioner. These facts suggest that Mr.S.Srinivasan, Mr.Damodaran and Mrs. Vimala Damodaran are trusted person of the petitioner. 51. Merely, because Mr.S.Srinivasan came forward and gave a sworn statement claiming ownership over seized money does not mean that the liability which can be fastened on the petitioner under the IT Act, 1961 can be shifted on Mr.S.Srinivasan. Merely, because Mr.S.Srinivasan has filed application to settle 72 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT case before the the Settlement Commission, by declaring the seized cash to his cash is of no relevance. 52. The subsequent engineering of an application of settling the dispute before the settlement commission by Mr.S.Srinivasan appears to be a mere ploy, ruse to divert attention. It was filed to detract the assessment proceedings. The application under section 144A of the IT Act itself appears to be an afterthought. Instead of giving attention to the show cause notice and participating in the adjudication, the petitioner appears to have been ill-advised to venture out in filing the above application. 53. Further, the cash was not found under the control and the possession of the said Mr.S.Srinivasan. It was found in the residence of Mr.Damodaran and Mrs. Vimala Damodaran with packet markings as Alangayam, Pallikonda etc. with the marking of the Municipal Wards, falling under the Vellore Parliamentary Constituency from where the petitioner was contesting. The presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the IT Act though a rebuttable presumption, is to be presumed against the petitioner. 54. Mere voluntary sworn statement on the same day by Mr.S.Srinivasan claiming that the seized cash were his, is not sufficient. Mr.S.Srinivasan has not shown himself to be a man of substantial means. On the other hand, the fact that the documents pertaining to the College/Trust of the Petitioner were found along with the seized cash as indicated above show that cash belonged to the petitioner which was not disclosed by the petitioner in his regular return.\" In the above case a third person made a sworn statement and owned up the cash found in the premises of petitioner. Such third person also filed an application before the Settlement Commission. However such sworn statement was rejected by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The matter was decided as per Preponderance of Probability. Some of the factors which weighed in deciding the matter arc as under:- • Such third person did not produce records to substantiate that cash belonged to him • Such third person has not filed Income Tax Return • Such third person has not shown himself to be a man of substantial means. • Such third person has not given any satisfactory explanation to substantiate his claim. • The cash was not found under the control and the possession of such third person. • The presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the IT Act though a rebuttable presumption, is to be presumed against the petitioner Shri Hari Narayan Jat, Shri Ramgopal Meena and Shri Satyapal Singh did not produce records to substantiate that cash belonged to them. The appellant has not claimed that they have filed Income Tax Return. The three individuals have not shown themselves to be men of substantial means. Presumption under sections 73 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT 132(4A) and 292C of the IT Act though a rebuttable presumption, is to be presumed against the appellant. In the statement under oath there was no reference to these three individuals making the said payment. The legal principles enumerated in the judgements in the case of Durai Murugan Kathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com 70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)(25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N. Jajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581 (Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01- 2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove that the funds deposited / paid to the seller of property are from the source from which it is being claimed. All these source transactions has to be linked and proved. The onus in this regard is on the assesse which has not been discharged. The appellant has not shown and not discharged the onus of showing the genuineness of the transaction and identity of the transaction. Although, the assessee has furnished a conveyance deed between the seller and Delhi based purchaser before the Id. AO but the same dose not rebut the fact that cash amount was paid by the appellant. In view of the above discussion the claims of the appellant are dismissed. In the statement the appellant has stated to have paid a cash amount of Rs. 21,11,000 and the learned assessing officer has done an addition of Rs. 21,25,000 in this regard. It has been upheld in the above paragraphs that the cash payment was done by the appellant. Further that if the property was registered in some other name and even if the said cash payment was received back by the appellant which however is not the claim of the appellant however the same is also irrelevant as the addition is on account of availability of the unaccounted/unexplained cash with the appellant and the investment of the same by the appellant in the rights and interests in the property and thus the undisclosed investment of the appellant for which the source of cash payment is unexplained. Accordingly the addition is restricted to Rs. 21,11,000/- which is the cash component as is also linked with replies of the appellant and which is also the amount mentioned by the appellant in the statement on oath. Thus this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 28. On this issue the appeal of the assessee was allowed in part and therefore, the assessee challenges that finding and in support of that ground ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed written submission which reads as under: 74 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT Ground No. 1 4(i) The first grounds of the appeal is challenging, the addition of Rs. 21,11,000/- has been made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that an agreement for purchase of agricultural land was found and seized. A copy of the relevant part of the said agreement is also pasted / mentioned at page No. 4 of the assessment order. With reference to the said agreement, a statement u/s 132(4) was recorded and the relevant question and answer is also appearing at page No. 5 of the assessment order. It is verifiable from the assessment order as well as CIT (A) order, that the addition has been made and confirmed mainly on the basis of the said statement of the appellant. For ready reference, the said part of the statement is reproduced herein below :- “iz’u&11 vkius iz’u la[;k 10 ds mÙkj esa crk;k fd nLrkost vkius tks vius ifjfprks dks tehu fnykbZ mlls iz’u&11 vkius iz’u la[;k 10 ds mÙkj esa crk;k fd nLrkost vkius tks vius ifjfprks dks tehu fnykbZ mlls iz’u&11 vkius iz’u la[;k 10 ds mÙkj esa crk;k fd nLrkost vkius tks vius ifjfprks dks tehu fnykbZ mlls iz’u&11 vkius iz’u la[;k 10 ds mÙkj esa crk;k fd nLrkost vkius tks vius ifjfprks dks tehu fnykbZ mlls lEcfU/kr gS mDr nLrkostks dks ns[kus ls Kkr gksrk gS fd ;s laifÙk vkius Lo;a lEcfU/kr gS mDr nLrkostks dks ns[kus ls Kkr gksrk gS fd ;s laifÙk vkius Lo;a lEcfU/kr gS mDr nLrkostks dks ns[kus ls Kkr gksrk gS fd ;s laifÙk vkius Lo;a lEcfU/kr gS mDr nLrkostks dks ns[kus ls Kkr gksrk gS fd ;s laifÙk vkius Lo;a us : ,d djksM crhl yk[k esa us : ,d djksM crhl yk[k esa us : ,d djksM crhl yk[k esa us : ,d djksM crhl yk[k esa [kjhnh gSA [kjhnh gSA [kjhnh gSA [kjhnh gSA mÙkj& mDr laifÙk ds bdjkjukes rd eSus flQZ : mÙkj& mDr laifÙk ds bdjkjukes rd eSus flQZ : mÙkj& mDr laifÙk ds bdjkjukes rd eSus flQZ : mÙkj& mDr laifÙk ds bdjkjukes rd eSus flQZ :- -- -21]11]000@&fn;s Fks ckn esa eSus ;g lEifÙk gfjlj izkbosV 21]11]000@&fn;s Fks ckn esa eSus ;g lEifÙk gfjlj izkbosV 21]11]000@&fn;s Fks ckn esa eSus ;g lEifÙk gfjlj izkbosV 21]11]000@&fn;s Fks ckn esa eSus ;g lEifÙk gfjlj izkbosV fyfeVsM ds ekfyd Jh /khjsUnz 'kekZ dks csp nh rFkk tehu ds ekfydksa dk iwjh jkf’k mUgh ls fnykbZ gSA bl lEcU/k fyfeVsM ds ekfyd Jh /khjsUnz 'kekZ dks csp nh rFkk tehu ds ekfydksa dk iwjh jkf’k mUgh ls fnykbZ gSA bl lEcU/k fyfeVsM ds ekfyd Jh /khjsUnz 'kekZ dks csp nh rFkk tehu ds ekfydksa dk iwjh jkf’k mUgh ls fnykbZ gSA bl lEcU/k fyfeVsM ds ekfyd Jh /khjsUnz 'kekZ dks csp nh rFkk tehu ds ekfydksa dk iwjh jkf’k mUgh ls fnykbZ gSA bl lEcU/k esa esa esa esa ;fn dksbZ lcwr foHkkx dks pkfg;s rks eSa is’k dj nqaxkA^^ ;fn dksbZ lcwr foHkkx dks pkfg;s rks eSa is’k dj nqaxkA^^ ;fn dksbZ lcwr foHkkx dks pkfg;s rks eSa is’k dj nqaxkA^^ ;fn dksbZ lcwr foHkkx dks pkfg;s rks eSa is’k dj nqaxkA^^ In this connection the appellant submits that the search team has not put any question / asked the source(s) of the said amount Rs. 21,11,000/- paid by the appellant. The sources were asked by the ld. AO and the appellant explained the same. 4(ii) Submissions Ground No. 1 is challenging an addition of Rs. 21,11,000/- (Rs. 19,11,000/- in cash and Rs. 2,00,000/- by cheque) on account of Purchase Agreement for purchase of an agricultural land situated at village Saroopgarh, Tehsil Hindoli, Bundi. The facts of the case are that one Shri Nirmal Singh Anand S/o Dileep Singh Anand owned the above said agricultural land vide Khasra No. 678 and 821/237. M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt Ltd. (whose directors are known to the appellant) were interested to buy the said land. Besides the appellant, Shri Ram Gopal Meena, Shri Hari Narain Jat and Shri Satyapal Singh were also the persons who were also acting as a middleman in the said agricultural land sale transaction. On the request of M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt. Ltd. an agreement to purchase was made through the appellant although the appellant was/is not a Director of the said company in the month of November, 2014. The said facts and submissions are evident and verifiable from the seized Agreement itself. For ready reference, the relevant part of the seized Agreement is reproduced herein below:- Page No. 1 of the said Agreement – 2nd para ^^ Jh t;iky flag ¼Jh gfjlj izk ^^ Jh t;iky flag ¼Jh gfjlj izk ^^ Jh t;iky flag ¼Jh gfjlj izk ^^ Jh t;iky flag ¼Jh gfjlj izk- -- - fy fy fy fy- -- - ½ iq= Jh fxjoj flag] vk;q 42 o\"kZ] tkfr pkj.k] ½ iq= Jh fxjoj flag] vk;q 42 o\"kZ] tkfr pkj.k] ½ iq= Jh fxjoj flag] vk;q 42 o\"kZ] tkfr pkj.k] ½ iq= Jh fxjoj flag] vk;q 42 o\"kZ] tkfr pkj.k] fuoklh Qwy ekfy;k] fuoklh Qwy ekfy;k] fuoklh Qwy ekfy;k] fuoklh Qwy ekfy;k] rglhy ekyiqjk] ftyk Vksad&Øsrk] ftls bl bdjkjukes esa vkxs ^^ f}rh;i{k Øsrk^^ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k x;k gS^^ rglhy ekyiqjk] ftyk Vksad&Øsrk] ftls bl bdjkjukes esa vkxs ^^ f}rh;i{k Øsrk^^ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k x;k gS^^ rglhy ekyiqjk] ftyk Vksad&Øsrk] ftls bl bdjkjukes esa vkxs ^^ f}rh;i{k Øsrk^^ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k x;k gS^^ rglhy ekyiqjk] ftyk Vksad&Øsrk] ftls bl bdjkjukes esa vkxs ^^ f}rh;i{k Øsrk^^ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k x;k gS^^ 4(iii) The total agreed sale consideration was Rs. 1,32,51,000/- and out of the said sale consideration at the time of execution of agreement to sale, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be paid by cheque and balance Rs. 19,11,000/- in cash. Further, vide 1st and 2nd para at page 3 of the said Agreement it is also mentioned that part 75 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT of the material agricultural land was let out and a further sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was payable after de-possession of land by the tenant within 2 months time. But the agricultural land owner Shri Nirmal Singh Anand could not fulfill the said terms of the agreement and ultimately the prospective buyer M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt. Ltd. refused to purchase the said land. The submissions of the appellant are that he has not paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by cheque to Shri Nirmal Singh Anand and for verification of the said facts he also submitted a relevant period copy of his bank account before the ld. AO. The appellant before the ld. AO submitted that the entire amount as per agreement was paid in cash by the following persons:- Shri Hari Narain Jat Rs. 10,11,000/- Shri Ram Gopal Meena Rs. 6,00,000/- Shri Satyapal Singh Rs. 5,00,000/- ____________ Rs. 21,11,000/- _____________ No payment by cheque was made. 4(iii)(a) In support of the above said facts and submissions, the appellant submitted affidavits of the above said persons who have admitted the above said payments made by them for purchase of the agricultural land through Shri Jaipal Singh. 4(iv) The Ld. AO has not questioned the above payment made. But he has not accepted the affidavits of the above said persons only for the reasons that affidavit of Shri Hari Narain Jat and Shri Ram Gopal Meena are not notarized and further no ID proof has been furnished along with the said affidavits. The Ld. AO was further of the view that when the above said persons are witnesses of the above said Sale Agreement then why they themselves have not made and executed the Sale Agreement in their own names. The ld. AO further observed that the appellant has not filed copy of any Agreement for cancellation of the said Agreement and also evidence of return of money already paid to the seller amounting to Rs. 21,11,000/-. 4(v) In this regard, the appellant submitted that because of the non vacation of the land by the tenant within two months time, the buyer M/s. Shree Harisar Pvt. Ltd. refused to purchase the land. Accordingly, the appellant searched a new buyer, namely, Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma S/o Satyadev Pal, Shri Dhirendra Sharma S/o Satyadev Pal and Shri Lokendra Sharma s/o Satyadev Pal. All three brothers were residing at Lovely Home Apartment, Plot No. 5, Dwarka Sector-5. A copy of the Registered Sale Deed made and executed by and between Shri Nirmal Singh Anand and the above said buyers along with copy of Revenue Jamabandi were filed before the lower authorities. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that one Shri Dhirendra Sharma who was a witness in the earlier Agreement to Sale with M/s.Shree Harisar Pvt. Ltd. is one of the buyer of the land. The facts are verifiable 76 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT from the above referred copy of the agreement to sale and copy of the registered Agreement to sale dated 19.11.2014 filed by appellant. From the above said legal documentary evidences, it is evident and verifiable that the appellant was only a middleman (conduit) in the said transaction and the entire payment of Rs. 21,11,000/- was made by the above said persons. The observations and finding of the ld. AO confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for making the addition are not in accordance with the requirement of law, as the requirement of notarization of affidavit has been dispensed by the legislature. Thus, at the material time there was no requirement for notarization of an affidavit. Further, the second observation of the ld. AO that why the witnesses themselves have not made the Agreement to Purchase in place of the appellant is also irrelevant for the reason that to negotiate and for some other valid reasons a middleman is appointed to finalize the land transaction. Further, as submitted above that one of the witnesses is a buyer of the land. Regarding third observation of the ld. AO of no cancellation of earlier agreement to sale and non refund of advance amount Rs. 21,11,000/-, the appellant submitted that one of the witnesses of the said Agreement is a buyer and other two persons are his real brothers. As such whatever amount paid earlier was adjusted by the land owner in the Purchase/Sale consideration at the time of Registration of the Purchase Deed. Further, the amount originally paid by the middleman Shri Hari Narain Jat, Shri Ram Gopal Meena and Shri Satyapal Singh who were witnesses along with Shri Dhirendra Sharma was settled by them before Registration of the document and the appellant has not paid any sum out of his pocket. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the financial resources of the appellant and the seized record itself crystal clear that the appellant has not paid a sum of Rs. 21,11,000/- on account of purchase of material agricultural land. The submissions are further strengthened from the facts which are also apparent from the assessment order itself that the appellant is a man of petty means and he was earning at the relevant period on about Rs. 25,000/- per month. As such it is not possible for him to pay such a huge amount of Rs. 19,11,000/- in cash for purchase of the agricultural land. It is, therefore, requested that the submissions of the appellant who acted as a middleman deserves to be accepted and the impugned addition of Rs. 21,11,000/- (actual amount Rs. 19,11,000/-) made on this account may kindly be deleted. 29. As is evident from the submission so made and from the repeated argument advanced and after going the finding recorded in the matter in the order of the lower authority the contention raised by the assessee need 77 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT a fresh look on the issue the assessee explained the source for all the amount of Rs. 21,11,000/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 30. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the finding recorded in the order of the ld. CIT(A). 31. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted that in while dealing with the ground he hold a view that the payment was made by the assessee merely based on the statement made by the assessee. But the ld. AR of the assessee submit that once the source of that money is explained the addition is not warranted. To support that contention the assessee also filed the affidavit too. Thus, the bench noted that the correct income should be taxed in the hands of the assessee and thus, the Bench is of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Considering that peculiar aspect of the matter we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld. AO who will consider the factual aspect of the matter as raised by the assessee after due verification of the facts and charge the correct income in the hands of the assessee after affording due opportunity to the assessee. However, the assessee will not seek any 78 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during proceedings before the ld. AO. Based on this observation ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 32. Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is exactly similar to the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee in ITA no. 116/JP/2024. On this matter the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under: “6.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- I have decided the similar issue in the case of the appellant for the assessment year 2013-14 where the addition made by the ld. AO has been upheld. Facts of the present appeal being pari-materia with the facts of the case of assessment year 2013-14 the findings of the appeal order in the case of assessment year 2013-14 will apply mutatis-mutandis to the present appeal for the assessment year 2015-16 and it is held accordingly. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed.” 33. As is evident that there is no specific finding of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue of each entry explained. The addition was made based on the diary found and impounded in search therefore facts are not repeated here. Even the reference of table 1 and table 2 based on the facts prepared by the ld. AO is not repeated to avoid the duplication. 79 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT The assessee on this issue filed a common submission which we have reproduced herein above. Therefore, now coming directly on the issue the first amount of Rs. 20,000/- dated 11.04.2014 in the name of Shri Chinnu reported at page 26 of the diary wherein the it is written as by Chintu therefore, that amount was received as earlier advance and second amount of Rs. 50,000/- dated 05.05.2014 reported at page 57 of the diary in the name of Shri Ghyansham and to whom the assessee has advanced money the said money has been advanced from the cash available with the assessee based on the detailed cash flow statement submitted by the assessee vide their paper book filed on 22.07.2024 that statement was available with the ld. AO and has not been disputed by the ld. AO through the ld. DR when the matter finally argued by the ld. DR and therefore, we do not find any reason to sustain that amount as income of the assessee. Now the third amount is related to page no. 58 of the diary seized wherein the date of payment is 07.07.2014 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. For that amount the assessee explained that lower authority has not considered the explanation of the assessee that the loan advanced out of Rs. 6,00,000/- received on 05.07.2014 from Shri Mool Singh vide page no. 30 of the seized diary and cash flow statement. The transaction with Shri Mool Singh have been considered by the ld. AO as not pertaining to 80 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT assessee at Sr no. 19 table 1 for which no addition was made. Therefore, we see no reason to sustain that addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- As regards the entry of Rs. 8,000/- reported at page no. 26 in the name of Shri Ashok dated 10.07.2014 there is no advance but in fact a contrary entry of the amount returned to Mosa sa ( Mool Singh Ji) through Ashok Singh verifiable from cash flow statement and therefore, no addition is required. Next entry dated 15.08.2014 in the name of Shri Roop Singh Jhoohinda at page 36 of the diary, the submission of the assessee reveals that the said amount is duly covered as explained from the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee vide their paper book filed on 22.07.2024 that statement was available with the ld. AO and has not been disputed by the ld. AO through the ld. DR when the matter finally argued by the ld. DR and therefore, we do not find any reason to sustain that amount as income of the assessee. Entry recorded at page 36 is repayment of the same person and therefore, we see no reason to tax that repayment as income of the assessee. For the remaining the three entry two is dated 01.11.2014 for Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 50,000/-. Where in the assessee in the submission sated that Rs. 25,000/- paid out of the cash flow statement submitted by the 81 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT assessee vide their paper book filed on 22.07.2024 that statement was available with the ld. AO and has not been disputed by the ld. AO through the ld. DR when the matter finally argued by the ld. DR and therefore, we do not find any reason to sustain that amount as income of the assessee. As regards the another entry of Rs. 50,000/- the bench noted that the assessee claimed that amount out of repayment of Shri Bhanu Pratap as per cash flow statement and therefore, that amount also cannot be considered as income of the assessee. The last entry of Rs. 15,000 recorded at page 26 dated 12.11.2014 is claimed as per the cash flow statement and the cash was available to that extent with the assessee. Based on these observations we direct ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 7,18,000/- made as income of the assessee and thereby allow ground no. 2 raised by the assessee. 34. Vide ground no. 3 the assessee challenges the addition of Rs. 76,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to that ground raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) reads as under : “8.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- In this regard Rs. 76,000/- is mentioned in the Ground No. 6 of Form no. 35 by the appellant. On perusal of assessment order and submission of the appellant it 82 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT is found that the Ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 62,000/- in the assessment order instead of Rs. 76,000/-. I have considered the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The Id. AO has discussed this issue in detail in para 8.8 of the assessment order. The appellant in the appeal has not made any substantive submissions on the issue and has merely raised this ground of Appeal without explaining the alleged factual or legal error in the decision of the learned assessing officer. The Id. AO has stated in this regard in the assessment order that ……………..As far as interest paid/ received against the persons tabulated in Table # 2 is concerned, since, onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it, the interest earned by the assessee in the name of such persons is treated as undisclosed interest income of the assessee and is taxed accordingly.\" This issue is also consequential to the issue as discussed in pre paragraphs on the issue of addition of the amounts mentioned in table 2 to the income of the appellant. Thus corresponding interest income is taxable in the hands of the appellant. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed.” 35. In support of this ground ld. AR of the assessee filed the written submission contending that the ld. AO has estimated the income as undisclosed interest income for an amount of Rs. 62,000/- without any basis and cogent supporting material available on record and seized and therefore, in the search assessment without placing anything on record from the seized material that the assessee has earned any interest the same cannot be added. Considering that aspect of the matte we direct the 83 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT ld. AO to delete that addition. Based on these observation ground no 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 36. Ground no. 4 raised by the assessee charge of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act which is consequential in nature and ground no 5 being general does not require our adjudication. Based on this observation the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 117/JP/2024 stands allowed. 37. Going further to we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 118/JP/2024 for assessment year 2016-17 and ITA no. 119/JP/2024 for assessment year 2017-18 and ITA no. 120/JP/2024 for assessment year 2018-19. In these three appeals the assessee has taken effective two ground one is related to the addition of loan and other interest income estimated. Since the bench has considered this ground in detailed while dealing with the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 117/JP/2024 for assessment year 2015-16 and the bench has given the detailed finding while dealing with the ground no. 2 & 3 of that appeal. The ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee in this three the appeals are exactly similar on set of facts and therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the finding and facts here again and therefore, the decision taken by the bench vide ground no. 2 & 3 in ITA no. 117/JP/2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the ground 84 ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024 Jaipal Singh vs. DCIT no. 1 & 2 of the assessee raised in these appeals. Based on this observation the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024 and 120/JP/2024 stands allowed. In terms of this observation all the six appeal of the assessee are disposed off. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11/03/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Jaipal Singh, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "