9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded that the assessee had given a plausible explanation about the contents of the said software. Furthermore, as rightly pointed out by the Ld.AR, there is no corroboration of those entries with the bills / vouchers , sales, stock registers etc, showing the cash sales to prove that the alleged cash sales belong to the assessee. Hence those entries cannot be relied upon for making an addition in the hands of the assessee. We also find in the case of Anoop Kumar Soni vs. DCIT [2023 (12) TMI 391 - ITAT DELHI] wherein while adjudicating almost similar facts related to search on JBL, the Tribunal held that since the ledger found during the search "AP" contains the entries of parties other than assessee, then said ledger cannot be said to be belonging to assessee and addition made on the basis of assumption was deleted. Similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Surender Kumar Jain [2024 (3) TMI 426 - ITAT DELHI] arising out of search in the JBL, wherein it was held that entries in the Hajir Johri ledger supposedly involving M/s. S.K. Impex, do not prove actual transactions without corroborative evidence such as bills or invoices. Thus we hold that no addition could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence, the Notice issued u/s 153C by the AO as well as the assessment order passed by AO are invalid, illegal both in the eye of law and on the facts. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the contention of the appellant that presumption of Section 292C cannot be applied to the appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the contention of the assessee that the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 1,20,800/- under sec. 69A relying on inadmissible evidence of ledger account found in 'Pankajkb' account of M/s JBL OFFLINE without providing the appellant the relevant details/ documents and right to cross examine the third party even on the several specific request made by the appellant to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the contention of the assessee that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,20,800/- as the addition is not based on evidence, opposed to evidences on records, based on the surmises and conjectu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On 20.12.2021, the assessee received "proforma for recording of satisfaction about seized assets belonging / pertaining / relating to person other than the person searched" together with ledger namely "Pankaj kb" containing financial data from 23.04.2015 to 09.05.2016 relevant to Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. On 21.12.2021, the assessee requested to provide the copy of statements recorded on oath under section 132(4) of the Act of Ms Parul Ahuluwalia and Mr Kusharg Jindal or any other persons wherein it is alleged that ledgers with code name "Pankaj kb" pertains to the assessee and it was also requested to provide an opportunity to cross examine those persons. 6. The assessee categorically denied having made any unaccounted cash transactions with JBL and also furnished the details of transactions done with JBL by the assessee. Hence the ledger account "Pankaj kb" was denied by the assessee completely. The Ld. AO issued show cause notice on 21.12.2021 as to why the amount of various unaccounted transactions entered in the ledger account with code name "Pankaj kb" pertaining to assessee / Meru Jewels by JBL should not be added to the income of the assessee on the basis of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dumb document, in as much as it makes no accounting sense to merge the entries of unrelated parties into one ledger, to state that it is trite law that no addition can be made on the basis of dumb documents, more so when no corroborative evidence of cash sales i.e., sales invoices/vouchers, stock register etc. were found during search. In support of this, the Ld AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. D.K. Gupta reported in 308 ITR 230 (Del). 9. In so far as statements of Ms. Parul Ahluwalia and Ms. Ekta Soni (employee of JBL group) referred by the Ld. AO in the assessment order, the Ld. AR pointed out that the Assessee had sought for cross examination of relevant persons, of those, who had deposed against the assessee, but the Ld. AO failed to provide the same. 10. The Ld. AR relied on the co-ordinate bench decisions of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Anoop Kumar Soni vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1641/Del/2021 dated 2.8.2023, wherein while adjudicating almost similar facts related to search on JBL, the Tribunal held that since the ledger found during the search "AP" contains the entries of parties other than assessee, then said led ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies recorded in regular books of account) and "kaccha" (unaccounted) transactions undertaken by JBL were documented in the "Hazir Johri" software. On perusal of seized data, among others, a ledger named "Pankaj kb" allegedly pertaining to Assessee was found. In the said ledger, the transactions made in cash as well as through banking channel were found recorded. But it is pertinent to note that the Hazir Johri Software was found and seized from the premises of JBL at the time of its search under section 132 of the Act. Hence the presumption under section 292C of the Act would apply to JBL and not to the assessee. Even though the proceedings stood initiated under section 153C of the Act on the assessee, the basic presumption under section 292C of the Act would only be on JBL. The assessee on its part had categorically denied the transactions reflected in the said Hazir Johri Software by clearly stating that the entries found thereon contains transactions of various other unrelated parties with the assessee and that the employee of JBL had recorded all the transactions against assessee's name. Admittedly, the entries reflected in the said software pertains to other unrelated parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to a third party there has to be some connect or corroboration with the third party. On the facts of the present case there is no direct evidence to establish that the account AP belongs to Anoop Soni. The entire action is based on presumptions made by the A.O. Notably, simultaneous search action on 05.01.2017 on Anoop Soni did not detect any material or evidence to establish or even suggest that he was engaged in unaccounted and undisclosed transactions involving sale/purchase of gold in cash outside books of accounts. 31. The entire addition by treating the account AP as belonging to Anoop Soni has been made on the basis of presumption drawn and the statement of Shri Parul Ahluwalia. However, statement of the assessee has not been recorded on this issue either at the time of search, post search inquiries or even during the assessment proceedings. A careful examination of the account AP as reproduced in the assessment order would reveal that in the remarks column various acronyms have been used against different transactions such as JD, KCX, RBG Overseas, KMTY, Oven AJ, JBL Coins, Oppo Mobile, Satia, Ishaan, Anshul, Vinod 8676, Guddu etc. These abbreviations show that the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
