M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

ITA 405/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Stanford Developers, a partnership firm engaged in real estate, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The primary disputes were related to additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which treated certain credits in the firm's books as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal examined the submissions, evidence, and the procedural adherence of the lower authorities in handling the assessments and appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774200 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT, Avan Gidwani Vs. ACIT, H.H. Rama Varma Vs. CIT, CIT Vs. P Mohankala, CIT Vs. Vardhman Overseas Ltd, CIT Vs. Parmeshwar Bohra, Kohinoor Enterprises Vs. CIT, ACIT Vs. Sun and Sun Inframetric P. Ltd, CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA GAUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S.L. PODDAR; MISS TWINKLE JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Onus to prove; Bonafide belief; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Source of fund; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” 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, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 405/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 M/s Stanford Developers Near R.C. Motors Janaksinghpura, Neemrana, Alwar. cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Behror LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACHFS3932Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. & Miss Twinkle Jain, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT- DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 01/07/2025 & 15/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 10/09/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM By way of present appeal, the assessee challenges the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short CIT(A)] dated 06.03.2025. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2018-19. Ld. CIT(A) passed that the order because the assessee challenged the order of assessment of income passed u/s 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act”) dated Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 2 20.02.2021 by National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO] before him. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order dated 06/03/2025 as the same is not in accordance with law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, which action is unlawful, illegal and unjust. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submissions made before him on the ground that the same amounted as fresh evidences and the same were hit by rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the major fact that credit in the name of Shreya Associates of Rs. 92,13,534/- was a trading liability and not a cash credit, hence, the addition of the same could not have been confirmed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5 15,74,99,500/- u/s 68 whereas the amount is capital introduced by partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar, by way of transfer from Shri Ramchandra Milk Diary Pvt. Ltd etc. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the 6 Learned Assessing Officer in computing tax with reference to Sec. 115BBE despite there being no direction in the assessment order. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the Learned Assessing 7 Officer for resorting to protective assessment in the case of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gujar whereas the capital introduced by him in assessee firm is fully explained. 8. The assessee pleads and craves and reserves his right for amending/adding any ground of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee has e-filed his original return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 31/08/2018 vide e- acknowledgment no. 257355301310818 declaring total income at NIL. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 3 selected for Complete scrutiny as per norms under the 'CASS' on the following issues:- S. No. Issues i. Income from Real Estate Business ii. Share Capital/Other Capital The statutory notices as required under the law were issued to the assessee. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, ample opportunities were provided to the assessee, however assessee has partially complied to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Ld. AO noted that on perusal of ITR filed by assessee, it is observed that high closing stock of Rs 35,13,76,484/- is reflected. In this regard, assessee have made submission on 07/12/2020, wherein bifurcation of same was provided. On perusal of Information submitted by assessee, ld. AO noticed that during the year under consideration, assessee has carried out Purchase Transaction from 3 parties namely Shrey Associates (PAN AANFS4884M), Shri Babu Singh Sisodia, Prop of Sisodia Electric Service (PAN AYCP509570) & Vinayak Constructions (BMPP-S3400F), out of which major transaction of Rs. 2,90,86,621/- was carried out with M/s Shrey Associates (PAN: AANFS4884M). During the course of assessment proceedings, notices for verification Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 4 of genuineness of transactions carried out with Shrey Associates (PAN:AANFS4884M), Shri Babu Singh Sisodia, Prop. of Sisodia Electric Service (PAN:AYCPS09570) & Vinayak Constructions (BMPPS3400F) was made by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to the same, one party namely Shrey Associates (PAN:AANFS4884M), did not respond in spite of issuing notice(s)/reminders u/s. 133(6) of the Act. However other party namely Shri Babu Singh Sisodia, Prop, of Sisodia Electric Service (PAN:AYCPS09570) responded & submitted necessary details which was perused & placed on record. Also, the PAN of the party namely Vinayak Constructions, as provided by the assessee, was invalid, thus no response has been received from party namely M/s. Vinayak Constructions. Record reveals that while scrutiny proceedings, assessee submitted confirmation of some creditors, however no confirmation in respect of party namely Shrey Associates (PAN:AANFS4884M) was provided. Further no bills &/or vouchers, copy of bank statement etc was provided by the assessee in order to justify genuineness of transaction made by the assessee with the said party namely Shrey Associates (PAN AANFS4884M). In view of the above, a strong suspicion arises in respect of the Identity, Existence & thus Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 5 genuineness of transactions made by the Assessee with Shrey Associates for which no explanation was offered. In this regard, the assessee, vide show cause notice dated 12/02/2021, provided with Draft Assessment order proposing modification in the income declared in ITR. In response to the same, assessee submitted reply on 15/02/2021. On perusal of submission made by the assessee, it was noticed that assessee has uploaded in all 10 PDF files. Out of such 10 pdf files, two files were named as 10051764739_2_Confirsrey NataniVinayakAY18-19 & 10051764739_3_VijayjiCapital Source support AY 18-19. Both the PDF files containing 42 pages each and most of the pages were blank. Those pages where information is available was perused and it is noticed that the information on such pages pertaining to confirmation of balance accounts by different parties in respect of transactions carried out by them with Vijay Jain (PAN: ADHPJ0798G). In the light of that fact ld. AO observed that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in respect of Identity, Existence & thus genuineness of transactions made by the Assessee with Shrey Associates. Therefore, whole of the credit balance appearing in the books of the assessee for an amount of Rs 92,13,534/- was treated as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section 68 of the Act Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 6 and thereby treated as Income of the assessee & taxed as per provision u/s 115BBE of the Act. 3.2 As is evident from the record that large capital of Rs. 18,78,66,292/- was introduced by the two partners of the firm, Rs. 15,63,84,422/- by Shri Ram Gurjar & Rs. 3,14,81,870/- by Shri Vijay Kumar Jain. While assessment proceedings, the assessee, vide notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act requested to explain the source of such huge Introduction of capital by Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar and Shri Vijay Kumar Jain. The assessee was also requested to substantiate creditworthiness of Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar and Shri Vijay Kumar Jain for introducing such huge capital along with supporting evidence. The assessee, vide reply submitted on 07/12/2020, furnished copy of ITR-V's along with computation of Income for AY 2016-17, AY 2017-18 & AY 2018-19 in respect of Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar and Shri Vijay Kumar Jain. On perusal of the same, ld. AO noted the total Income declared by Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar and Shri Vijay Kumar Jain which is tabulated herein below:- Name of person AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 Shri Ram Gurjar Rs. 75,70,830/- 13,47,930/- 8,66,890/- Shri Vijay Kumar Jain Rs. 1,07,44,920/- Rs. 37,34,770/- Rs. 73,34,040/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 7 In view of the ITR filed by Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar and Shri Vijay Kumar Jain for last three years, the creditworthiness of Introducing such huge capital in the name of Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar and Shri Vijay Kumar Jain was not justified. In this regard, the assessee, vide show cause notice dated 12/02/2021, provided Draft Assessment order proposing modification in the income declared in ITR. In response to the same, assessee submitted reply on 15/02/2021. In respect of Introduction of capital in the name of Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar, the assessee in its submission submitted as under:- \"The amount of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- standing payable to Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar under the Schedule 'Sundry Creditors' in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2017 has been credited to his capital account. Likewise, amount of Rs. 13,30,000/- standing in name of Ram Chandra Milk Dairy Private Limited under the Schedule \"Unsecured Loan' in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2017 has been transferred to Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar capital account. Besides, the amount of Rs.40,45.000/- in aggregate, taken from Ram Chandra Milk Dairy Private Limited during the year, has been credited to capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar in assessee firm.\" The assessee also submitted copy ledger extract of Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar in its books. Ld. AO considered the submission of the assessee but was not found acceptable on following grounds: a) The assessee stated that amount of Rs 15,13,50,000/-standing payable to Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar under the Schedule \"Sundry Creditors' in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2017, however, as per copy of ledger extract submitted by the assessee itself, the closing balance for year ending 31.03.2017 is Rs 5,45,59,134/- and journal entry of the amount of Rs 15,13,50,000/- was passed on date of 01/04/2017 Le begining of the year under consideration. Further said entry of Rs 15,13,50,000/- was passed in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 8 the name of \"Ram Chander-Land\" for which no any justification/documentry evidence is submitted during the assessment proceedings. b) The assessee, in its submission dated 15/02/2021, has tried to co-relate the transaction carried out by assessee with entity namely Ram Chandra Milk Diary Pvt Ltd with Ram Chandra Gurjar, however it is pertinent to note that in view of Income Tax Act, Ram Chandra Milk Diary Pvt Ltd & Ram Chandra Gurjar are two separate entities and thus transactions carried out with each such entity has to be recorded separately. c) The assessee also submitted copy of bank statement which was claimed to have been pertaining to Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar. On perusal of the same it is noticed that assesee have uploaded different pages of a bank statement, however no any Name of Account holder is appearing on the said pages. Thus, assessee failed to prove the authenticity of its claim that said bank statement actually pertaining to Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar. It is further pertinent to note that assessee have been provided ample opportunities, as mentioned in para 4 above, to submit necessary details, however it has not complied to the same. Ld. AO from the copy of ledger extract submitted by assessee on 15/02/2021, noticed that during the year under consideration, amount of Rs 15,74,99,500/- is credited in the books of the assessee in the name of Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar, in respect of which assessee failed to give any justification despite given ample opportunities. However, as per copy of capital account submitted by assessee on 07/12/2020 along with computation of Income, total capital introduced in the name of Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar is Res 15,63,84,422/-. Based on that fact ld. AO noted that amount of Rs 15,74,99,500/- as claimed by assessee as Capital introduced by Shri Ram Gurjar is nothing but the unaccounted income of the assessee for which no explanation was offered. Thus, whole of amount of Rs. 15,74,99,500/- was treated as unexplained cash credits appearing in the books of assessee within Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 9 the meaning of section 68 of the Act and added back to the total Income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving the following findings: - “Decision on Grounds of Appeal: [for addition of Rs.92,13,534/-] Based on the facts, arguments, and findings discussed above, the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant are rejected. It is observed that the Learned Assessing Officer has applied Section 68 correctly by treating the credit balance of Rs. 92,13,534/- as unexplained credits. The Appellant’s failure to provide conclusive evidence justifying the transactions with Shrey Associates leaves no scope for reversal of the addition. This Ground of Appeal is accordingly dismissed Findings: [ for Addition u/s 68 for capital contribution by Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar (Rs. 15,74,99,500/-) The facts, issues and documents uploaded by the appellant have been examined. It is found that the Appellant's submissions are superfluous and lack in merit. The findings are as follows: Failure to Prove Creditworthiness: The partners' including Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar's income tax returns demonstrate that their declared income was significantly lower than the capital introduced or, loan given (As per story of the Appellant). The Appellant failed to provide any substantial evidence, such as bank statements, loan agreements, or independent confirmations, to prove that the partners had the financial capability to introduce such huge sums. 6.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee, vide reply submitted on 07/12/2020, furnish copy of ITR-V's alongwith computation of Income for AY 2016-17, AY 2017-18 & AY 2018-19 in respect of Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar and Shri Vijay Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 10 Kumar Jain which is perused. On perusal of the same, the total Income declared by Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar and Shri Vijay Kumar Jain is as under: Name of person AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 Shri Ram Gurjar Rs. 75,70,830/- 13,47,930/- 8,66,890/- Shri Vijay Kumar Jain Rs. 1,07,44,920/- Rs. 37,34,770/- Rs. 73,34,040/- The Income Tax Return of said Partner has been examined by the Ld. A.O. It emerges that the Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar is a person of moderate means, and lacks the wherewithal to advance sums / contribute partnership capital of Rs. 15,74,99,500/-. Unsubstantiated Journal Entries: The Appellant's claim that the amounts were credible documentary evidence. The ledger extracts and bank statements submitted were incomplete and failed to establish a clear audit trail linking the alleged transactions to legitimate sources of income. Lack of Independent Verification: The Appellant did not furnish any confirmations from the alleged creditors or financial institutions supporting the claimed transactions. No independent third-party evidence was provided to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions, making the entire claim unreliable. Applicability of Section 68: Judicial precedents relied upon by the Appellant were found to be inapplicable to the present case. The Appellant misinterpreted case laws to argue that section 68 does not apply to journal entries. In this case, the appellant has failed to establish the Capacity Genuineness-Creditworthiness of the Sources (Incl. partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar) to even introduce the sums are unsecured loans at the first instance, which has been claimed to be transferred to the capital account. The genuineness of the transaction (Both the so-called unsecured loan, as well as the present claimed conversion of loan into capital contribution) have not been established apart from self-certification. As per settled legal principles, when an assesseefails to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of credits appearing in their books, section 68 is squarely applicable. Since the Appellant failed to establish these three essential conditions, the invocation of section 68 was fully justified. Mere Book Entries Do Not Prove Genuineness: The claim that funds were transferred through book adjustments does not exempt the Appellant from proving the source of those funds. Courts have consistently held that mere accounting entries cannot replace Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 11 genuine financial transactions. The Appellant's failure to prove the actual source of the capital introduction or, the so-called subsisting loan made the entire claim untenable. There is to interest payment via Banking channel by the Appellant partnership firm to said Sh. Gurjar on the so-called claimed liability. Contradictions in Submissions: The explanations provided by the Appellant were inconsistent and contradictory. Initially, the Appellant claimed that the capital introduction was sourced from pre-existing balances, but later attempted to justify it through unrelated transactions. The lack of a clear, consistent explanation further undermined the credibility of the Appellant's claim. Hence, the arguments and vacillating contentions of the appellant are rejected being unsupported, and just a superficial response. Decision on Grounds of Appeal: In light of the above findings, it is evident that the Appellant failed to substantiate the source and genuineness of the capital introduced. In this case, the appellant has failed to establish the Capacity - Genuineness-Creditworthiness of the Sources (Incl. Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar) to even introduce the sums are unsecured loans at the first instance, which has been claimed to be transferred to the capital account. The Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 68 of the Income Tax Act, as the Appellant could not discharge its burden of proof. The rejection of explanations provided by the Appellant has been based on sound reasoning and legal precedents. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant are rejected, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld. 10. Directions under section 150 for re-assessment of income of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar on Protective Basis: The Assessing Officer is directed under section 150, sub-section (2) to take the matter into account and undertake a protective assessment in the name of the Partner. The Assessing Officer is directed to reopen the case of the said Partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar, and undertake the assessment on a protective basis. 11. DECISION: 11.1 The ground of appeal fails. The additions are sustained and assessment is confirmed. 11.2 The Assessing Officer is directed u/s 150 to examine and proceed in matter of the partner, Sh. Ram Chandra Gurjar for “protective (re) assessment”. Appeal dismissed.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 12 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the second appeal before this tribunal raising therein various grounds as reproduced herein above in para 2. Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following written submission :- “BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE \u0001 The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in real estate business. Return of income for assessment year 2018-19 was filed on 31/08/2018 declaring NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under E-assessment Scheme, 2019. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 22/09/2019. The assessment stands completed u/s 143(3)/144B on 20/02/2021, determining total income of Rs. 16,12,90,311/- , inter-alia, by making the following additions :- 1 Addition u/s 68 by treating the credit balance with M/s Shrey Associates as unexplained cash credit. Rs.92,13,534 2 Addition u/s 68 by treating the credit/capital contribution by Ram Chandra Gurjar, partner as unexplained. Rs.15,74,99,500 2. Against the order of the Learned Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A), vide appeal order dated 06/03/2025, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Learned CIT(A) has mainly dismissed the grounds of appeal on the ground that the assessee had furnished fresh evidences without filing an application under Rule 46A. In fact, these were not fresh evidences as the same were filed before the Learned Assessing Officer. However, keeping the observation of the Learned CIT(A) in view, while filing appeal in the case of the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT, the assessee has separately moved application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of additional evidences, which were filed before the Learned CIT(A) and have now been filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal is humbly requested to admit and accept the additional evidences, which are imperative for discharge of justice in the case of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 13 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The individual grounds of appeal are discussed as follows :- Ground No.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order dated 06/03/2025 as the same is not in accordance with law. & Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, which action is unlawful, illegal and unjust. & Ground No.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submissions made before him on the ground that the same amounted as fresh evidences and the same were hit by rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. The grounds No. 1 to 3 are taken together for discussion. It is submitted that the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is against the established norms of law. It is submitted that in the case of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assesse had information containing 42 pages in pdf files. However, the Learned Assessing Officer, in the assessment order, mentioned that most of the pages in these files were blank and, as such, the submissions of the assessee stood disregarded and the assessment was completed making uncalled for additions. Now before the Learned CIT(A), the assessee furnished all those very evidences, which were submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer and which were rejected by him being blank, the Learned CIT(A), in his turn, has rejected these evidences on the ground that these were fresh evidences without backed up application u/s 46A. In this way, the assessee has suffered in the hands both of the Learned Assessing Officer as well as the Learned CIT(A) on account of unfortunate circumstances. 4.1 It is submitted that before rejecting the evidences filed by the assessee before the Learned CIT(A) on the ground that these were fresh evidences, the Learned CIT(A) was expected to provide an opportunity for filing application under Rule 46 A. The assessee was under a bona fide belief that no fresh evidence was virtually filed before the Learned CIT(A) as the same stood filed before the Learned Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is the humble submission of the assessee that the Learned CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the grounds of appeal of the assessee and has also erred in considering the evidences filed before him as fresh. 4.2 It is submitted that Rule 46A cannot override the principles of natural justice. In this case, the evidences were filed before the Learned Assessing Officer, but the Learned AO, without giving opportunity to the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 14 assessee, observed that some of the pages in the pdf file uploaded was blank. This observation was not communicated to the assessee and additions were made without providing opportunity to the assessee. These evidences were filed by the assessee before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting these vital evidences, which touch the roots of the case, over-riding the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIt (1991) AIR 241, held that Rule 46 A cannot override the principles of nature justice. The ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of AvanGidwaniVs ACIT I.T.A..No. 5138/Mum/2015, held that \" The principle \"Audi alterampartem\", i.e. no man should be condemned unheard is the basic canon principles of natural justice and accordingly we find merit in the contentions of the assessee that Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules cannot be over ride the principles of natural justice. Hence we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit the various additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Since the assessee was not given opportunity to contradict the findings given by the AO by not admitting the additional evidences, we are of the view that the LdCIT(A) should re-adjudicate all the issues afresh by admitting the additional evidences. \" Therefore, the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and the Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to grant relief accordingly. 4.3 In the above regard, the assessee is furnishing copy of submissions made before the Learned CIT(A) on 7/2/2025 as well as copy of paper book submitted along with the submission. These are available on Paper Book Page No.20-77. Ground No.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the major fact that credit in the name of Shreya Associates of Rs. 92,13,534/- was a trading liability and not a cash credit, hence, the addition of the same could not have been confirmed. 5. Before the Learned CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that amount of Rs. 92,13,534/- was a trading liability standing in the name of M/s Shreya Associates. M/s Shreya Associates was carrying out construction work of the assessee. Total construction work was done of Rs. 3,19,31,534/-. During the year, the assessee made payment to the tune of Rs.2,27,18,000/- and balance Rs. 92,13,534/- remained outstanding. In support of this, assessee had filed copies of vouchers of Shreya Associates, confirmation of account from Shreya Associates and relevant bank account. All these are available on Paper Book Page No.1-19. However, the Learned CIT(A) did not appreciate the submissions of the assessee simply on the ground that there was no application u/s 46A. The action of the Learned CIT(A) was not in accordance with law. His order has violated the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble ITAT humbly requested to delete the addition of Rs. 92,13,534/-. 5.1 The relevant part of submissions made before the Learned CIT(A) are quoted below :- \"It is submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee engaged M/s Shreya Associates, S-33-34, JDA Shopping Centre, Amrapali Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 15 Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur for constructing residential complex under the name and style \"Pearl Sunrise RC\" at Neemrana, Dist. Alwar (Now Behror). During the year under consideration, on account of carrying construction work, payment to the extent of Rs. 92,13,534/- was outstanding to be paid by the assessee to M/s Shreya Associates as on 31/03/2018. The same is verifiable with reference to the copy of account of M/s Shreya Associates as appearing in the books of the assessee. The perusal of the copy of account reveals that a sum of Rs. 31,60,000/- was a debit balance in this account as on 01/04/2017. This shows that Shreya Associates were associated with the assessee firm in the earlier year also. During the year under consideration, Shreya Associates carried out construction work to the tune of Rs. 3,19,31,534/-. Against this, the assessee made payment to the tune of Rs. 2,27,18,000/- and a sum of Rs. 92,13,534/- remained outstanding as on 31/03/2018. All these facts and figures are available and verifiable from the copy of account of M/s Shreya Associates. Further, in support of carrying out construction work, following bills presented by M/s Shreya Associates were also furnished before the Learned Assessing Officer. The details are as under :- S.No Bill No & Date raised by Shreya Associates Amount (Rs) Date on which accounted for in the books of account 1 22 to 27 dt. 3/4/2017 59,03,831 17/4/2017 2 28 Dt 3/4/2017 7,30,256 17/4/2017 3 1 to 4 3/4/2017 5,26,567 17/4/2017 4 1530, 986, 791, 996 Dt. 3/4/2017 3,98,527 17/4/2017 5 23 to 28 Dt. 1/6/2017 29,71,148 27/6/2017 6 29 Dt.1/6/2017 45,11,889 27/6/2017 7 23 to 28 1/6/2017 15,75,900 27/6/2017 8 Running Bill No. 2 Dt. 1/6/2017 10,18,915 27/6/2017 9 Running Bill No. 2 Dt. 1/6/2017 10,91,353 27/6/2017 10 Running Bill No. 3 Dt. 30/06/2017 3,79,779 30/06/2017 11 Bill No. 36 dt.5/12/2017 36,40,194 19/12/23017 12 Bill No.37 dt. 5/12/2017 33,92,165 19/12/2017 13 Bill No. 38 dt. 5/12/2017 51,73,145 19/12/2017 14 Bill No. 39 dt. 5/12/2017 6,15,211 19/12/2017 15 Bill No.40 dt. 5/12/2017 2,42,542 19/12/2017 It is submitted that these bills are conclusive documentary evidences of work done by M/s Shreya Associates. The assessee has made payment to the extent of Rs. 2,27,18,000/- through banking channel. Against the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 16 aforesaid bills, sum of Rs. 92,13,534/- remained outstanding as on 31/03/2018. Copies of the aforesaid bills, copy of account of M/s Shreya Associates, copy of confirmation of Shreya Associates have been furnished on Paper Book Page No.1-19 already submitted along with forwarding letter dated 11/12/2023. A copy of this letter is available on the additional Paper Book Page No. 01-15 being submitted with this submission. The position being so, the amount of Rs.92,13,534/- was a trading liability which stands duly verified with reference to the aforesaid bills and copy of account of Shreya Associates, having PAN AANFS4884M. In view of this, the credit of amount Rs. 92,13,534/- in the name of Shreya Associates is fully explained. The Learned Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the same as unexplained under section 68. All the aforesaid papers and documents stood submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer under letter dated 07/12/2020 and 15/2/2021. Copies of these letters are available on the additional Paper Book Page No. 16-18being submitted with this submission. It is further submitted that in the assessment order, the Learned Assessing Officer has mentioned regarding the reply filed by the assessee, but has observed that the PDF file of 42 pages was blank. In this regard, it is suffice to say that if the position was so, the Learned Assessing Officer was required to ask the assessee to resubmit the reply, but this was not done. The assessee stood rest assured that he had made full compliance and he could not imagine that PDF file uploaded by him was blank. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the trading liability of Rs. 92,13,534/- is fully explained. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. It is further submitted that a trading liability cannot be treated unexplained u/s 68 of the IT Act more so when the purchases/work done have not been doubted. In this case, the Learned Assessing Officer has not observed adversely anything about the payments made by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 2,27,18,000/- to Shreya Associates for the construction work done by them. Therefore, the construction work done by Shreya Associates stands established as genuine. In view of this, the outstanding payment appearing as credit in the books of the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained by any stretch of imagination. The following decisions are quoted in support, which have been mentioned in detail in the earlier submission made before the Learned CIT(A) on 11/12/2013 :- (1) Manoj Agarwal Vs. DCIT (2009) 113 ITD 377 (Delhi) (2) CIT Vs. RituAnurag Agarwal (2009)(7) TMI 1247 (Delhi) (3) CIT Vs. Pancham Das Jain (2006) 156 Taxman 507 (Allahabad) (4) CIT Vs. Vardhman Overseas Ltd(2011) 16 taxmann.com 350\". In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Hon'ble Tribunal is humbly requested to delete the addition made u/s 68 in respect of the trading liability. Ground No.5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,74,99,500/- u/s 68 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 17 whereas the amount is capital introduced by partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar, by way of transfer from Shri Ramchandra Milk Diary Pvt. Ltd etc. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted details and sources of capital introduced by the partner Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar in the firm, which amounted to Rs. 15,74,99,500/-. In support of the source of capital, the assessee also submitted complete ledger extracts, confirmation and relevant bank accounts. All these documents were also submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, but the Learned Assessing Officer failed to consider the same on the ground that some pages of the the pdf file submitted by the assessee was blank. Now before the Learned CIT(A), all the documents submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer were submitted and the assessee, in bona fide trust, did not consider these documents as fresh evidences and so did not file application u/s 46A for admission of these evidences before the Learned CIT(A). But the Learned CIT(A) has treated all the documents filed before him as fresh evidence and has not considered the same holding that same were hit by Rule 46A. It is the submission of the assessee that before rejecting the submissions of the assessee, in the interest of equity and justice, it was incumbent upon the Learned CIT(A) to have given at least one opportunity for filing a formal application under Rule 46A, but this was not done and the submissions of the assessee were rejected. 6.1 It is relevant to submit that it is not the case of the Learned CIT(A) that the evidences and documents submitted by the assessee are not relevant or do not explain the source of capital introduced by the partner. The action of the Learned CIT(A) is totally misplaced with respect to non-filing of application under Rule 46A, otherwise the entire capital of Rs. 15,74,99,500/- introduced by the partner Shri Ram Chandra Gujaris fully explained and the addition deserves to be deleted. The relevant part of submissions made before the Learned CIT(A) is reproduced below, the Hon'ble ITAT is humbly requested to peruse the same sympathetically and delete the addition. The relevant part of submissions made before the Learned CIT(A) \"It is further submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer has also made addition of Rs. 15,74,99,500/- with respect to capital in the capital account of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gujar. The addition has been made by the Learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the reply and documents submitted by the assessee as mentioned in para 6.3 of the assessment order. During the year under consideration, the capital account of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gujar was credited with the following amounts :- S.No Amount (Rs) Date of credit in the capital account 1 15,13,50,000 01/04/2017 2 13,30,000 01/04/2017 3 4,00,000 3,00,000 1,50,000 5,90,000 Total 14,40,000 05/04/2017 18/04/2017 25/04/2017 02/05/2017 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 18 4 4,65,000 7,90,000 2,50,000 2,50,000 3,00,000 2,00,000 5,00,000 6,00,000 24,500 Total 33,79,500 02/06/2017 03/07/2017 15/07/2017 08/08/2017 14/08/2017 21/08/2017 21/08/2017 30/08/2017 10/12/2017 Grand Total Rs.15,74,99,500 (1) Rs. 15,13,50,000/- credited on 01/04/2017 It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings that Shri Ram Chandra Gujar was a creditor in the books of accounts of the assessee under the head \"sundry creditors\". A sum of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- was payable by the firm to Shri Ram Chandra Gujar. In this regard, a copy of Balance sheet as on Balance sheet as on 31/3/2017 of Stanford Developers is furnished and is available on additional Paper Book Page No. 19-22.It was this amount which was transferred by way of journal entry as on 01/04/2017. In this regard, copy of relevant account of Ram Chandra Gujar in the books of Stanford Developers as creditor is available on additional Paper Book Page No.23. In this account, there is opening balance of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- as on 01/04/2017 payable to Shri Ram Chandra Gujar. This account has been debited on 01/04/2017 by way of journal entry and the capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar has been credited of the same amount of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- on 01/04/2017. A copy of capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar is available on Paper Book Page No.24-25. Thus, the creditor account of partner has been closed and the amount has been transferred to capital account of the partner. There is no fresh induction of funds. Hence, the Learned Assessing Officer was not unjustified in treating the amount as unexplained. The addition deserves to be deleted. It is further submitted that in respect of journal entries, provisions of Sec. 68 are not applicable because no real amount comes into the books. The amount was already lying in the books of the firm. There was no fresh introduction of capital. It was shifting of funds from one account to another account by way of journal entries. The amount was transferred from creditor account to capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar, partner. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (1) H.H. Rama Varma Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 308 (Supreme Court) Held that the phrase \"any sum\" employed in Sec. 68 of the Act cannot be extended to include any book entry, notional adjustment, payment in kind etc. (2) CIT Vs. P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Sec. 68 observed that (a) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the tax payer (b) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year. It is further submitted that the credits transferred to the account of partners stood as opening balance in the books of the firm. In other words, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 19 these were brought forward balances and the money existed in the earlier years in the books of the firm. It is settled position of law that brought forward balances cannot be subjected to tax u/s 68 in subsequent years. The following decisions are quoted in support :- (1) Kohinoor EnterpsiesVs. CIT 410 ITR 153 (2) ACIT Vs. Sun and Sun Inframetric P. Ltd (2024) 460 ITR 258 (Chattisgarh HC) (3) CIT Vs. ParmeshwarBohra (2008) 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan HC) 2. Rs. 13,30,000 credited on 01/04/2017 It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings that Shri Ram Chandra Milk Diary Pvt. Ltd was a creditor in the books of accounts of the assessee firm under the head \"sundry creditors\". A sum of Rs. 13,30,000/- was payable by the firm to Ram Chandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. In this regard, a copy of Balance sheet as on 31/3/2017 of Stanford Developers is furnished and is available on Paper Book Page No.19-22 cited above. It was this amount which was transferred by way of journal entry as on 01/04/2017. In this regard, copy of relevant account of Ram Chandra Milk Diary Pvt. Ltd in the books of Stanford Developers as creditor is available on Paper Book Page No.26. In this account, there is opening balance of Rs. 13,30,000/- as on 01/04/2017 payable to Shri Ram Chandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. This account has been debited on 01/04/2017 by way of journal entry and the capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar has been credited of the same amount of Rs. 13,30,000/- on 01/04/2017. A copy of this account is available on Paper Book Page No. 24-25 cited above. Thus, the creditor account of Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd to the extent of Rs. 13,30,000/- has been debited and the amount has been transferred to capital account of the partner. There is no fresh induction of funds. Hence, the Learned Assessing Officer was not unjustified in treating the amount as unexplained. The addition deserves to be deleted. It is further submitted that in respect of journal entries, provisions of Sec. 68 are not applicable because no real amount comes into the books. The amount was already lying in the books of the firm. There was no fresh introduction of capital. It was shifting of funds from one account to another account by way of journal entries. The amount was transferred from Ramchandra Milk Diary P Ltd (creditor account) to capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar, partner. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (1) H.H. Rama Varma Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 308 (Supreme Court) Held that the phrase \"any sum\" employed in Sec. 68 of the Act cannot be extended to include any book entry, notional adjustment, payment in kind etc. (2) CIT Vs. P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Sec. 68 observed that (a) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the tax payer (b) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year. It is further submitted that the credits transferred to the account of partners stood as opening balance in the books of the firm. In other words, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 20 these were brought forward balances and the money existed in the earlier years in the books of the firm. It is settled position of law that brought forward balances cannot be subjected to tax u/s 68 in subsequent years. The following decisions are quoted in support :- (i) Kohinoor EnterpsiesVs. CIT 410 ITR 153 (ii) ACIT Vs. Sun and Sun Inframetric P. Ltd (2024) 460 ITR 258 (Chattisgarh HC) (iii) CIT Vs. ParmeshwarBohra (2008) 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan HC) (3) Rs. 14,40,000/- credited in the capital account of partner 4,00,000 3,00,000 1,50,000 5,90,000 Total 14,40,000 05/04/2017 18/04/2017 25/04/2017 02/05/2017 It is submitted that the capital account of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gujar has been credited by an amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- on various dates as mentioned above. In this regard, copy of capital account of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gujar is available on Paper Book Page No.24-25 cited above. It is submitted that Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd transferred the aforesaid amounts on aforesaid dates in the account of the firm M/s Stanford Developers. The amount was deposited in the bank account of the firm. The amount was deposited by Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd on behalf of and for partner, Shri RamchandraGujar. Accordingly, the firm has credited the partners account by aforesaid amounts on aforesaid dates. Copy of the partners account is available on Paper Book Page No. cited above. The copy of account of M/s Stanford Developers in the books of Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd is available on Paper Book Page No. 27.Copy of bank account of the firm in Bank of Baroda is available onPaper Book Page No.28-41reflecting the receipt of amount on aforesaid dates from Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the source of amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- is Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. In support of identity of M/s Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd and genuineness of transaction, copy of ITR filed by Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd for the A.Y. 2018-19 is available on Paper Book Page No.42-47. In view of the aforesaid facts, the introduction of capital to the extent of Rs. 14,40,000/- in the account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar, partner, is fully explained. The transactions are through banking channels. The Learned Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the same as unexplained. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. (4) Rs. 33,79,500/- credited in the capital account of partner 4,65,000 7,90,000 2,50,000 2,50,000 02/06/2017 03/07/2017 15/07/2017 08/08/2017 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 21 3,00,000 2,00,000 5,00,000 6,00,000 24,500 Total 33,79,500 14/08/2017 21/08/2017 21/08/2017 30/08/2017 10/12/2017 The source of deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 33,79,500/- in capital account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar, partner is bank account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar. Copy of bank account with Bank of Baroda is available on Paper Book Page No.48-56.. In the bank account, the amount has come from Ramchandra Milk Diary Private Limited. Copy of bank account of Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd is available on Paper Book Page No.27-167 submitted along with original submission dated 11/12/2023. As already submitted, Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd is assessed to tax at PAN AAGCR9560H and copy of return for A.Y. 2018-19 is available on paper book page number cited supra. In view of the aforesaid facts, the introduction of capital to the extent of Rs. 33,79,500/- in the account of Shri Ram Chandra Gujar, partner, is fully explained. The transactions are through banking channels. The Learned Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the same as unexplained. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (1) Aravali Trading Co Vs. ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Rajasthan HC) (2) KanhaiyalalJangidVs. CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Rajasthan HC) (3) CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 101 DTR 377 (Rajasthan HC) In the aforesaid cases, it has been held that where the transactions are through banking channels and identity of the creditors has been established and the creditor is assessed to tax, in such cases, the transactions stood explained and addition u/s 68 was not sustainable. Therefore, the additions made in the case of the assessee deserve to be deleted.\" 6.2 In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Hon'ble Tribunal is humbly requested to delete the addition made u/s 68 in respect of the trading liability. Ground No.6 (amended) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) had erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in computing tax with reference to Sec. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961, which are not applicable. 7. In the above regard, it is submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has decided and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground of non-filing application u/s 46A and, thus, all the documents submitted before the Learned CIT(A) remained unconsidered. Had the Learned CIT(A) appreciated the submissions of the assessee and supporting papers, the entire addition would have stood deleted. In such circumstances, there would have been no occasion for application of Sec. 115BBE. Alternately, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 22 it is also submitted that Learned CIT(A) has already issued directions for considering the capital contribution in the hands of the partner. In these circumstances, the issue of additions in the hands of the firm is no more subsisting. In view of this, theHon'ble ITAT is humbly requested to hold that provisions of Sec. 115BBE are not applicable in the case of the assessee. Ground No.7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the Learned Assessing Officer for resorting to protective assessment in the case of partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gujar whereas the capital introduced by him in assessee firm is fully explained. 8. In the above regard, it is submitted that in the first instance, the Learned CIT(A) has not appreciated the submission furnished by the assessee along with supporting documents, such as, copy of confirmations, copy of ledger accounts and bank account on the ground that these were fresh evidences not supported by application under Rule 46A. As already submitted, the assessee had submitted all these documents before the Learned Assessing Officer, but while passing the assessment order, the Learned Assessing Officer observed that some of the pdf file uploaded by the assessee was blank. The Learned Assessing Officer did not bring this fact to the notice of the assessee before completion of assessment. Otherwise, the assessee would have uploaded the documents for the second time. In these circumstances and background, the assessee was under bonafide belief that the documents submitted before the Learned CIT(A) were not fresh evidence and, hence, no application under Rule 46 was made. The Learned CIT(A) acted against the principles of natural justice by not providing any opportunity to the assessee for furnishing application under Rule 46A. Rather on the other hand, the Learned CIT(A) has acted prejudiciously in giving directions for taking action in the hands of partner on protective basis. The Learned CIT(A) should have first substantively decided the matter before him after appreciating the documentary evidences furnished before him instead of rejecting the same on technical ground treating those as fresh evidences. In the absence of this, there was no justification for issuing directions for taking action in the hands of partner. 8.1 The Hon'ble ITAT is humbly requested firstly to appreciate the documents submitted explaining the capital introduced by the partner and delete the additions. Secondly, the Hon'ble ITAT is humbly requested to undo the directions issued by the Learned CIT(A). Ground No.8 The assessee pleads and craves and reserves his right for amending/adding any ground of appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 23 The Hon'bleITAT is humbly requested to consider the grounds, including amended grounds, submissions made by the assessee and case laws cited and decide the appeal in favour of the assessee and oblige.” 6. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a prayer for admitting the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which reads as follows :- “We humbly pray as under: - 1. It is submitted that in the case of the assessee, the Learned Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A)&143(3B) on 20/02/2021 determining total income of Rs.16,12,90,311/- as against returned income of (-) Rs.54,22,723/-. 2. During the course of assessment proceedings before the Learned Assessing Officer, the assessee uploaded 10 PDF files, which consisted copy of bank statements, confirmation, ledger account of Ramchandra Gujar, partner and Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. Papers were also submitted relating to Shreya Associates and its confirmation. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer failed to consider these and has observed in the assessment order at para 5.3. as under :- \"5.3 In this regard, the assessee, vide show-cause notice dated 12/02/2021, was provided draft assessment order proposing modification in the income declared in ITR. In response to the same, assessee submitted reply on 15/02/2021. On perusal of submission made by the assessee, it is noticed that assessee has uploaded in all 10 PDF files. Out of such 10 pdf files, two files were named as \"10051764739 2 confirShreynatanivinay A.Y1819 & 10051764739 3 VijayjiCapitalsourcesupportAY 1819\". Both the PDF files containing 42 pages each and most of the pages were blank. Those pages where information is available is perused and it is noticed that the information on such pages pertaining to confirmation of balance accounts by different parties in respect of transactions carried out by them with Vijay Jain (PAN ADHPJ0798G).\" It is submitted that before passing the assessment order, the Learned Assessing Officer was required to intimate the assessee that 42 pages were blank and further the papers uploaded did not relate. This was not done. Thus, the assessee remained under bona fide belief that the information submitted by him made full compliance of the requirements of the Learned Assessing Officer. However, only on receipt of assessment order, it transpired that PDF files were blank. In appeal before the Learned Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 24 CIT(A), all these papers were submitted, but the Learned CIT(A), treating them as fresh evidence, did not consider the same, observing that the same were hit by Rule 46A. The Learned CIT(A) did not provide any opportunity before rejecting the evidences furnished before him. The assessee did not make any application under Rule 46 A as all these evidences stood furnished before the Learned Assessing Officer. In the above facts and circumstances, as a matter of abundant caution, the assessee is moving this application that the evidences being furnished before the Hon'ble ITAT may kindly be admitted and considered sympathetically. The evidences being furnished are copies of third party accounts and, as such, the same cannot be alleged to be manipulated. Further, these evidences are vital for deciding the appeal of the assessee. The details of additional evidences are as per Paper Book submitted on 09/12/2023 and Additional Paper Book submitted on 1/1/2025 before the Learned CIT(A). Copies of the same are available on Paper Book being submitted along with submissions. It is submitted that the evidences being placed before the Hon'ble Tribunal are of vital nature for deciding the appeal of the assessee. It is submitted that these additional evidences are mostly copies of accounts and confirmations of third parties, hence, these cannot be created by the assessee. In view of this, the additional evidences may kindly be admitted and considered sympathetically. The following case laws are quoted in support :- (1) GVK Industries Ltd Vs. ACIT (2012) taxmann.com 107 (Hyderabad) \"Where documents sought to be submitted would help in arriving at right decision, same should be admitted\". (2) Jasmine Commerical Ltd Vs. CIT(2011) 200 Taxmann 388 (Calcutta) Under Rules 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, Tribunal has discretion to admit additional evidence in interest of justice once Tribunal affirms opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. (3) CIT Vs. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd (239 CTR 263 (Delhi) Where the Tribunal found that CIT(A) had wrongly treated papers filed by assessee as new evidence, said finding was finding of fact and could not be said to be perverse. (4) CIT Vs. Sikka Overseas (P) Ltd (2010 328 ITR 641(Delhi) Once it is found that party intending to lead evidence before Tribunal for first time was prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidence and that said evidence would have material bearing on issue and ends of justice demanded admission of such an evidence, Tribunal could pass an order to that effect. (5) Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 867 (Allahabad) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 25 Under Rule 29, the powers of the Tribunal admit additional evidences are limited and the Tribunal has a discretion which, of course, must be exercised reasonably. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to kindly admit the additional/supporting evidences for proper adjudication of the matter.” 7. To support the contentions raised in the written submission the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following evidences:- Sr. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of ledger accountof M/s Shrey Associates for the period 1/4/2017 to 31/3/2018 along with copies of bills raised by Shrey Associates in respect of work carried out by them. 1-19 2. Letter/submission dated 11/12/2023 filed before the Learned CIT(A) by earlier counsel along with index of paper book submitted. 20-36 3. Copies of letters dated 07/12/2020 and 15/2/2021 filed before the Learned Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings 37-39 4. Copy of Balance sheet of Stanford Developers as on 31/3/2017 40-43 5. Copy of account of Shri RamchandraGujar in the books of M/s Stanford Developers (1/4/2017 to 31/3/2018) 44 6. Copy of capital account of RamchandraGujar in the books of the firm Stanford Developers from 1/4/2016 to 31/3/2018 45-46 7. Copy of account of Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd in the books of Stanford Developers 47 8. Copy of account of Stanford Developers in the books of Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd 48 9. Copy of bank statement of Stanford Developers with Bank of Baroda for F.Y. 2017-18 49-62 10. Copy of ITR, audited accounts and computation in the case for Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd for A.Y.2018-19 63-68 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 26 11. Copy of bank statement of Shri RamchandraGujar with Punjab & Sins Bank, reflecting the credits from Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. 69-77 8. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above submission vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) stated that the evidence submitted by the assessee are of the additional evidence and were not admitted is wrong in support of that he relied upon the para 5.3 of the assessment order wherein the ld. AO has categorically submitted that the assessee has filed 42 pages. On the one hand ld. AO confirms that the page contains confirmation whereas on the other hand he submit that the details are not readable. Thus, the fact that the assessee has not provided the details is incorrect based on that finding recorded in the order of the ld. CIT(A) is against the fact available on record. He again referring to para 6, 6.1 to 6.7 of the assessment order wherein the ld. AO inspite of filling all the details has not considered the source of partners capital account. As is evident from the assessment order that the assessee has submitted ITR, ledger account and all the related complete details so as to explain the source of capital but the ld. AO and that of the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts. Thus, the details which are already on the record of the ld. AO cannot be considered as additional evidence as held by the ld. CIT(A). Without prejudice to the facts once the assessee submit all the evidence the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 27 principles of nature justice demands that the ld. CIT(A) should have considered those evidence and have considered the merits of the disputes. 9. The ld. DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A). She vehemently argued that the cash was selected for specific verification of the issue and the ld. AO made the addition on those issues as the assessee has not supplied the details as required on the issue. As stated by the ld. AO in his order that the PDF files attached were blank and therefore, there is no merits in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee. As regards the admissibility of the additional evidence she relied upon the finding of the ld. CIT(A) given in para 7 thereby she submitted that the assessee’s plea for admitting the evidence cannot be entertained and thereby justice to be given to the revenue. She also submitted the comments of the ld. AO on the issue vide letter dated 14.07.2025 and the comments of the ld. AO reads as follows: Sub:- Appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 (AY 2018-19) in the case of Stanford Developers, PAN-ACHFS3932Q - reg - 2. Kindly refer to your good office letter No. 393 dated 01.07.2025, vide which a detailed reply has been sought regarding the direction issued by the Hon'ble ITAT to provide a clear reply regarding what was available in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 28 reply vis-à-vis the details submitted as additional evidences at the second appellate stage. 3. In connection with the above, it is submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had entered into purchase transactions with M/s Shrey Associates. Accordingly, notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act dated 10.12.2020, 20.12.2020, 07.01.2021, and 22.01.2021 were issued to the assessee to furnish a copy of the ledger extract of M/s Shrey Associates in its books of accounts for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. However, the assessee failed to comply with these notices despite being afforded repeated opportunities. Further, a notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act was also Issued to M/s Shrey Associates to verify the genuineness of the transactions. However, no compliance was received from the sald concern. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 12.02.2021 was Issued to the assessee, requiring it to explain as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order proposing a modification In the Income declared in the ITR. In response, the assessee submitted online reply on 15.02.2021, consisting of 10 PDF files, detailed as under: The AO has observed that file: 10051764739_2_ConfirShrey Natani VinayakAY1819.pdf File: & File 10051764739_3_Vijayji Capital SourceSupportAY1819.pdf consists of 42 pages and most of the pages were blank and some pages contains details of transactions carried out by Vijay Jain with some parties. Page wise details of each file are as under:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 29 It is also imperative to mention here that documents uploaded in both files are same. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 30 In view of the above, it is evident that no details regarding Shrey Associates were submitted before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings. 4. With respect to the additional evidence furnished by the assessee before the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is submitted that Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules governs the admissibility of such evidence. The relevant rule is reproduced below: 29. Production of additional evidence before the Tribunal The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or, if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced. A plain reading of the above rule clearly indicates that additional evidence can be admitted only in cases where the AO has decided the matter without providing the assessee a sufficient opportunity to present its case. However, in the instant case, the AO, vide notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act dated 10.12.2020, 20.12.2020, 07.01.2021, and 22.01.2021, specifically requested the assessee to furnish a copy of the ledger extract of M/s Shrey Associates for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to comply with the said notices. In view of the above, it is evident that adequate and repeated opportunities were provided to the assessee to submit the relevant details regarding transactions with M/s. Shrey Assoclates. The assessee's fallure to furnish the requisite Information appears to be a deliberate attempt to prevent the AO from conducting a thorough inquiry into the matter. Accordingly, the additional evidence submitted at the appellate stage is not admissible under the provisions of Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. 5. On perusal of the paper book submitted by the assessee, it is observed that the assessee has furnished a copy of the ledger account of M/s Shrey Associates for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, along with the running bills raised by M/s Shrey Associates for the said period. However, the assessee has neither provided any documentary evidence regarding the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 31 nature and details of the work carried out by M/s Shrey Associates nor submitted a copy of the bank statement reflecting payment of outstanding credit balance in subsequent year. Accordingly, the genuineness of the credit balance of Rs. 92,13,534/- remains unsubstantiated and the additions made by the AO deserves to be upheld. 10. We have heard both the parties, have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and perused the materials available on record. Vide Ground no. 4 the assessee challenges the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of credit balance appearing in the name of Shreya Associates of Rs. 92,13,534/- which was lying as trading liability but was treated as cash credit. 10.1 The brief facts of the dispute are that for the year under consideration the assessee made purchases from 3 parties namely Shrey Associates (PAN AANFS4884M), Shri Babu Singh Sisodia, Prop of Sisodia Electric Service (PAN AYCP509570) & Vinayak Constructions (BMPP-S3400F), out of which major transaction of Rs. 2,90,86,621/- was carried out with M/s Shrey Associates (PAN: AANFS4884M). While assessment proceeding ld. AO issued notices as per provision of section 133(6) of each of the three parties to verify the transactions. In response to the same, one party namely Shrey Associates (PAN:AANFS4884M), did not respond despite issuing notice(s)/reminders u/s. 133(6) of the Act. Thus, for this transaction no confirmation in respect of this party was provided even the bills &/or Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 32 vouchers, copy of bank statement etc., was not provided by the assessee in order to justify genuineness of transaction made by the assessee with the said party namely Shrey Associates (PAN AANFS4884M). Based on that fact ld. AO noted that a strong suspicion arises in respect of the Identity, Existence & genuineness of transactions made by the Assessee with Shrey Associates for which no explanation was offered. In this regard, the assessee, vide show cause notice dated 12/02/2021, assessee was provided with Draft Assessment order proposing modification in the income declared in ITR. In response to the same, assessee submitted reply on 15/02/2021. On perusal of submission made by the assessee, it was noticed that assessee has uploaded all 10 PDF files. Out of such 10 pdf files, two files were named as 10051764739_2_ConfirsreyNataniVinayakAY18-19 and 10051764739_3_VijayjiCapital Source support AY 18-19. Both the PDF files uploaded containing 42 pages each and most of the pages were blank [ as noted by the ld. AO]. Those pages where information is available were perused by ld. AO and he noticed that the information on such pages pertaining to confirmation of balance accounts by different parties in respect of transactions carried out by them with Vijay Jain (PAN: ADHPJ0798G). In the light of that fact ld. AO Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 33 observed that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in respect of Identity, Existence & genuineness of transactions made by the Assessee with Shrey Associates. Therefore, the whole credit balance appearing in the books of the assessee for an amount of Rs 92,13,534/- was treated as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section 68 of the Act and thereby treated as Income of the assessee & taxed as per provision u/s 115BBE of the Act. 10.2 When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the addition by observing as under: Findings: The facts, issues and documents uploaded by the appellant have been examined. It is held that the Learned Assessing Officer has correctly examined and assessed the Appellant’s income. The onus was on the Appellant to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions concerning Shrey Associates. However, the Appellant has failed to discharge this burden. The Ld. A.O. has categorically notes that despite multiple opportunities, the Appellant did not submit adequate documentation such as confirmation from Shrey Associates, relevant bank statements, or purchase vouchers. The failure of Shrey Associates to respond to notices issued under sub-section 133(6) further draws adverse inference Page 14 of 22 ACHFS3932Q- STANFORD DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2018-19 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074122069(1) regarding its genuineness. Additionally, the PAN of Vinayak Constructions, another entity involved in the transactions, was found to be invalid, further strengthening the case against the Appellant. The mere existence of an entry in the books of accounts of the Appellant itself does not justify the genuineness of a credit balance unless substantiated with proper evidence. Such entries are self-generated documentation. The claim that payments worth Rs. 2,27,18,000/- were made to Shrey Associates does not, in itself, validate the genuineness of the outstanding balance. The absence of substantial evidence before the Assessing Officer, such as confirmation from Shrey Associates, proper invoices, or bank transactions substantiating the balance, undermines the credibility of the Appellant’s claim. Subsequent evidences before the CIT(A) are hit by provisions of Rule 46A and lack admissibility. Furthermore, reliance on judicial precedents by the Appellant does Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 34 not support its case, as the basic requirement of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the claimed transaction remains unfulfilled. It is trite law that the failure to provide sufficient evidence justifies the invocation of Section 68. In this case, the failure to establish the existence of Shrey Associates and the lack of response to official notices further substantiate the view that the credit balance remains unexplained. Thus, the assessment made by the Learned Assessing Officer is based on sound reasoning, considering the lack of verification, inconsistencies in submissions, and the inability of the Appellant to provide credible documentary evidence. Decision on Grounds of Appeal: Based on the facts, arguments, and findings discussed above, the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant are rejected. It is observed that the Learned Assessing Officer has applied Section 68 correctly by treating the credit balance of Rs. 92,13,534/- as unexplained credits. The Appellant’s failure to provide conclusive evidence justifying the transactions with Shrey Associates leaves no scope for reversal of the addition. This Ground of Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10.3 As is evident from the above facts that the assessee in response to show cause notice uploaded 10 PDF files containing all the details in connection with the proposed addition. The assessee contended that out of such 10 PDF file two files were named as “10051764739_2ConfirShreyNataniVinayakAY1819” & 10051764739_3 VijayjiCapital SourceSupport AY1819”. The assessee contended that when they have downloaded these files from the portal where it was uploaded all the pages are visible. This fact which was contended before us were not controverted by the revenue by placing any contrary material on record. The fact that the uploaded documents were alleged to have been blank was not informed to the assessee by the ld. AO. This itself violates the principles of natural justice. Even the matter carried before the ld. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 35 CIT(A) wherein with a view to resolve the issue the assessee submitted all those documents as additional evidence under rule 46A. While adjudicating the matter the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that though the assessee has submitted all the documents in connection with that addition but no opportunity were given to the assessee that the documents uploaded were blank and thereby the assessee filed the application for additional evidence which the ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the back ground as to why the same was submitted and why that contention raised by the assessee were not correct. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidence violates the principle of “Audi alteram partem” i.e. no one can be condemned unheard and thereby the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is not correct based on the facts and circumstances already on record. Thus, we hold that the evidence so submitted before the ld. AO which he did not deal and allow the assessee an opportunity of being heard. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he did not consider the evidence stating that the application for additional evidence is not maintainable as the assessee failed to support the claim. Considering that peculiar facts we are of the considered view that lis between the parties must be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 36 heard. Based on that discussion we are of the considered view that the evidence since being placed before ld. AO same cannot be considered as additional evidence, as the ld. AO did not allow the assessee to rebut the contention of the ld. AO that the same are blank evidence. 10.4 Having held so we examined that evidence the bench noted from the confirmation of account that there was an opening balance of Rs. 31,60,000/- in the books of the assessee which was in debit. The assessee credited the account of M/s. Shrey Associates for an amount of Rs. 3,19,31,534/- on account of various bills for civil construction work. That M/s. Shrey Associates also levied service tax and or Goods and Service Tax to the assessee. The assessee has deducted TDS on the invoice so credited. For the year under consideration the assessee has paid Rs. 2,27,18,000 [ including opening amount paid for an amount of Rs. 31,60,000/- ] thereby leaving amount payable for an amount of Rs. 92,13,534/- for the invoices raised in December 2017. Having analyzed these facts and since addition was made considering the provision of section 68 of the Act it would be appropriate to deal with that provision before going further; Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 37 Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year : Provided that where the sum so credited consists of loan or borrowing or any such amount, by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless,— (a) the person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless— (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided also that nothing contained in the first proviso or second proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10. 10.5 As is evident from the above provision and the fact stated herein above how the credit for an amount of Rs. 92,13,534/- as unexplained credits out of the total credit in the books of account of the assessee for an amount of Rs. 3,19,31,534/-. Thus, the two stands for the same assessee and that too for a business transaction thereby the assessee deducted TDS and faced the levy of GST and Service Tax by a trading transaction cannot be considered as unexplained credit within the criteria of section 68 of the Act and thereby we direct the ld. AO to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 38 delete the same. We get support of our view from the decision of our own Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohara 301 ITR 0404 wherein our High Court has held that; 6. It does not require any elaborate argument that a carried forward amount of the previous year does not become an investment or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94. This alone is sufficient to sustain the order of the Tribunal in deleting the amount of Rs. 1,55,316/- from the assessment for Assessment Year 1993-94. Since the appeal succeeds on the merit of the assessee’s case in respect of the additions made in the income computed on reassessment, the validity of notice dt. 17th June, 1997 need not be gone into. Respectfully considering that ratio that continuous transaction being carried out by the assessee, part of the same is considered as genuine and part not is not correct. In the light of this discussion ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Vide Ground no. 5 the assessee challenges the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,74,99,500/- being the amount of capital introduced by partner, Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar. As regards the evidence or that of the additional evidence we have while dealing with the ground no. 4 of the assessee have given detailed finding as to why the submission of the assessee is required to be admitted on the evidence already placed in the assessment proceeding or that of the proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) it is not imperative to repeat that finding again here in that fact shall apply in the ground of appeal no. 5 mutatis mutandis as the facts are same. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 39 Before we deal with this ground of appeal on its merits it would be appropriate to extract the Schedule to the Balance of the previous year which reads as under Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 40 The above credit that was lying as on 31.03.2017 was transferred to capital account as on 01.04.2017 and the same is supported by the confirmation filed by the assessee before the ld. AO which the ld. AO contend that these pages were blank, the said confirmation reads as under : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 41 The figure of the addition derived by the ld. AO is arrived from the capital account as submitted by the assessee from the paper book page 45 which reads as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 42 As is evident from the above account that the ld. AO out of the total credit of 21,20,58,634 less opening balance of Rs. 5,45,59,134/- derived the balance for an amount at Rs. 15,74,99,500/- as the fresh capital introduced by the assessee for the year under consideration. The bench noted that out of the amount of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- is not the fresh capital but it is the credit lying in the account of the assessee firm and the same were transferred from the creditor’s account of the same partner for earlier year transaction cannot be added in the year under consideration. We get support of this view from the decision our own Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohara 301 ITR 0404 wherein our High Court has held that; 6. It does not require any elaborate argument that a carried forward amount of the previous year does not become an investment or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94. This alone is sufficient to sustain the order of the Tribunal in deleting the amount of Rs. 1,55,316/- from the assessment for Assessment Year 1993-94. Since the appeal succeeds on the merit of the assessee’s case in respect of the additions made in the income computed on reassessment, the validity of notice dt. 17th June, 1997 need not be gone into. Respectfully following the above judicial precedent, we do not find any reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 15,13,50,000/- as of the previous year credit cannot be added in the year under consideration and therefore, we direct the ld. AO to delete the said addition as it does not come under the ambit of the provision of section 68 as held by our High Court in the case as cited herein above. Now as regards the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 43 credit of the balance amount of Rs. 61,49,500/- we also note that the credit of Rs. 13,30,000 transferred in the capital account of the assessee is also on account of the credit of the previous year and following the decision of CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohara (Supra) we direct the ld. AO to delete the same for an amount of Rs. 13,30,000/-. Now for the remaining amount for an amount of Rs. 48,19,500/- we note that capital account of the assessee was credited for an amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- on the various dates as listed herein below : 4,00,000 3,00,000 1,50,000 5,90,000 Total 14,40,000 05/04/2017 18/04/2017 25/04/2017 02/05/2017 The assessee contended that Shri Ram Chandra Gujar capital account was credited for an amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- on various dates as mentioned above. The capital account was placed on record at Paper Book Page No.24-25. The assessee based on the evidence placed on record before the AO, additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A) and before us contended that the source of the credit was from Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd on the dates as mentioned herein above. The amount was deposited in the bank account of the firm. The amount was deposited by Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd on behalf Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 44 of and for partner, Shri Ramchandra Gujar. Accordingly, the firm has credited the partners account by aforesaid amounts on aforesaid dates. Copy of bank account of the firm in Bank of Baroda placed on record at Page No.28-41reflecting the receipt of amount on aforesaid dates from Ramchandra Milk Diary P. Ltd. Since these credit being fresh and as argued by the ld. DR that the ld. AO and that of the ld. CIT(A) has categorically submitted that the same was not verified and therefore, since these transactions of fresh credit as claimed received require verification. Therefore, to that aspect of the matter we are of the considered view that the assessee must present all the documents before the ld. AO to justify the credit which is are submitted before us as an additional evidence which we admit and direct the ld. AO verify the contention and for this limited purpose for verification of this credit of Rs. 14,40,000/- the matter is restored to the file of the ld. AO. Similarly, the assessee claims that for an amount of Rs. 33,79,500/- the amount was received from the disclosed source which also requires verification and that matter is also restored to the file of the ld. AO to verify the evidence submitted in the form of additional evidence before us and that of the ld. CIT(A). Based on these observations, ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is treated as partly allowed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 45 12. Ground no. 6 raised by the assessee, being consequential in nature does not require any finding. As we have considered the ground no. 5 in majority in favour of the assessee there is no need to make any addition in hands of the partner of the assessee firm. Ground no. 8 being general does not require our finding. Ground no. 1 & 2 raised are on the technical ground and since we have considered the merits of the dispute raised by the assessee these technical grounds becomes academic. Ground no. 3 being the additional evidence not admitted by the ld. CIT(A) since we have while dealing with the ground no. 4 & 5 duly considered that evidence appropriately and therefore this ground is disposed off accordingly. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/09/2025. 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:- 10/09/2025 *Santosh/Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Behror . 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 405/JPR/2025 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. 46 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 405/JPR/2025} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "