SURESH KUMAR JALAN,BARIATU V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

ITA 260/RAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Suresh Kumar Jalan against the orders of the CIT(A), Patna, concerning the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The primary contention was regarding the addition of Rs.1.48 crores received from a family settlement and subsequent interest income from loans given by the assessee's wife to her brother. The Tribunal examined the documents and submissions presented, including the settlement deed and other financial records, and concluded that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not substantiated by adequate evidence. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the need for clear documentation and proper attribution of income to the correct taxpayer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717075 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT vs. Umesh Ishrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT DATTA; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: R.R. MITTAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized; Loose papers

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE S/ RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.260 ITA No. 55 ITA No. 56 ITA No. 57 Suresh Kumar Jalan, Flat No.2004, Sri Radhe Krishna Gardens, 10th Ranchi PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate of the ld CIT(A) 3/10752/2012-13, No.CIT(A), Patna 3/11120/2014-15 and assessment year IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 260/RAN/2024:Assessment Year : 2 55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 20 56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 20 57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 20 Suresh Kumar Jalan, Flat No.2004, Sri Radhe Krishna floor, Block-B, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle Ranchi .AEWPJ 8021 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.R.Mittal, Adv Revenue by : Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19/08/202 Date of Pronouncement : 19/08/2 O R D E R These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate of the ld CIT(A)-Patna-3 all dated 7.2.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), 13, No.CIT(A), Patna-3/10764/2013-14, No.CIT(A), Patna 15 and No.CIT(A), Patna-3/10430/2015 assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively P a g e 1 | 16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 /RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 /RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 /RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 ACIT, Central Circle-1, Respondent) Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR 2025 2025 These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders in Appeal No.CIT(A), Patna- No.CIT(A), Patna- 3/10430/2015-16, for the 17, respectively. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 2 | 16 2. Shri R.R.Mittal, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.1,48,00,000/- representing the settlement amount received by the assessee in respect of his family settlement. Ld AR of the assessee has filed written submissions, which reads as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 3 | 16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 4 | 16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 5 | 16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 6 | 16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 7 | 16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 8 | 16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 9 | 16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 10 | 16 5. It was the submission that the settlement of family partition deed also clearly showed that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.1,48,00,000/- on the settlement. It was the submission that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) be deleted. 6. In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that there was a search on the assessee on 9.2.2019. In the course of search, certain documents had been found during the search, claimed by the assessee, as dumb documents. The documents showed that the assessee’s wife Smt. Renu Jalan had given a loan of Rs.1,30,00,000/- to her brother Shri Pawan Bajaj and she was receiving the interest. It is this interest amount which has been shown in the said noting, found during the course of survey. The assessee stated that the amount of Rs.1.30 crores as having been given to his wife Smt Renu Jalan and in turn Smt Renu Jalan had given money to her brother. The fact also remains that certain portion of the interest which has been shown in the said documents as having been paid to Smt. Renu Jalan and also to the children of the assessee. Now for the assessment year 2013-14 clearly the settlement deed shows that the assessee has received Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 11 | 16 Rs.1,48,00,000/- as cash value to settle inequalities in the partition for deciding the partition deed. Thus, clearly the assessee has shown the source of money of Rs.1.48 crores out of the settlement money that has been received by the assessee. This being so, for the assessment year 2013-14, we are of the view that the addition of Rs.1.48 crores cannot be sustained and consequently, we delete the same. 8. For the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17, it is noticed that the additions are basically on the interest which have been received from the assessee’s wife brother Shri Pawan Bajaj, which have been shown in the name of another company. Admittedly, the assessee’s claim that these documents are dumb documents would not stand to reason. The assessee has filed written submission for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 12 | 16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 13 | 16 “ Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 14 | 16 not be made simply on the basis of rough scribbling made by some unidentified person on a few loose sheets of paper. Since the seized papers were undated, had no acceptable narration, and did not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party, they were in the name of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and could not be taken as the sole basis for determination of un disclosed income of the assessee, thus no addition can be made by the AO on grossly inadequate material or rather no material at all and as such deserved to be deleted. The Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Umesh Ishrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) held that since the Tribunal concluded that entries reflected in loose papers were not corroborated with any other evidence on record, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the impugned additions made by the revenue.” (typed from the written submission). 9. The claim of the assessee is that the said loose sheets are dumb documents. These cannot be called dumb documents insofar as the assessee in his statement has categorically explained the said documents. Even otherwise, the said documents having been found at the premises of the assessee, obviously, the same is to be considered and to be explained by the assessee. The assessee cannot rush away by stating that these are dumb documents. The assessee’s wife name is in the said document and assessee’s children’s name are in the said document. The assessee’s bank receipts in respect of assessee’ wife and children for having received the interest are shown in the said documents. Therefore, these are not dumb documents but are documents in relation to transaction of the loan of Rs.1.30 crores given by assessee’ wife to her brother Shri Pawan Bajaj. This being so, the assessee’s claim of dumb documents no more survive Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 15 | 16 and same stands rejected. It is noticed that the addition in respect of said interest has been made in the hands of the assessee. The assessee was asked to provide the clear type of details of the said documents found during the course of search. The assessee has provided the same, which reads as follows: Renu Jalan Pawan Bajaj B.K.Agarwal Total addition Addition should be 2013-14 4,13,000 page-15 54,000 Page-16 4,67,000 4,67,000 2014-15 15,60,000 page-15 2,16,000 page-16 17,76,000 17,76,000 2015-16 11,19,440 page-17 2,16,000 no noting 13,35,440 11,19,440 2016-17 3,33,395 no noting 3,33,395 39,11,835 33,62,440 10. The said clear type version of the documents found during the course of search as also the documents per se shows that these documents relates to Smt. Renu Jalan. This being so, the interest which have been recorded in the documents are liable to be assessed only in the hands of Smt. Renu Jalan and not in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also made certain estimated addition representing the possible interest which could have been received by the assessee. Obviously, these interests have not been received. The seized documents would have to be given credible validity insofar as the assessee would have recorded in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.260/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.55/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITA No.56/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2015-16 ITA No.57/RAN/2024: Assessment Year : 2016-17 P a g e 16 | 16 said documents, what has been received by the assessee. In the present case, there is no recording of possible interest and such interest which have been estimated by the AO and addition made would stand deleted. The addition as made in respect of loose documents cannot be upheld as it relates to assessee’s wife Smt. Renu Jalan. Consequently, the addition in respect of interest made in the hands of the assessee stands deleted. 11. In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/08/2025. Sd/- sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi ; Dated 19/08/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The appellant; Suresh Kumar Jalan, Flat No.2004, Sri Radhe Krishna Gardens, 10th floor, Block-B, Ranchi 2. The Respondent: ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi 3. The CIT(A)- Patna-3 4. Pr.CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "