Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Ritu Tuli,Gurgaon vs Dcit, Central Circle-8, New Delhi on 31 December, 2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.2016/Del/2023
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Ritu Tuli, Vs DCIT,
B-373, Second Floor, Central Circle-8,
Sushant Lok-1, New Delhi.
Chakkarpur B.O.,
Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122 002.
PAN: AFCPT4767Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &
Shri Vijay Singh, CA
Revenue by : Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Date of Hearing : 19.12.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024
ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17.05.2023 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. 'FAA') in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-24/10453/2016-17 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 31.12.2022 passed u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the ACIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
2. Heard and perused the record.
2.1 The background necessary for adjudication of the appeal in hand are that the Appellant is a regular income tax assessee, assessed. During the year under consideration, the Appellant filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Acton 18.03.2017, declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,00,000/-. During the year under consideration, the Appellant along with her mother acquired a property situated at B-376, B Block, 2nd Floor, Sushant Lok - I, Gurugram. Haryana - 122001 from Ms. Sudha Malik through her GPA holder Sh. Anil Narang for an agreed sales consideration of Rs. 61,50,000/-. The share of the Appellant in the said property was 50%, while the balance 50% was acquired by her mother, accordingly, the Appellant paid 50% of the agreed consideration of Rs.30,75,000/- after deducting the appropriate TDS. The amount of sales consideration was paid by the Appellant from her own disclosed sources and completely through bank account.
2.2 On 03.01.2018, a search and seizure operation were carried u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Navneet Dawar and others, which also covered the premises of Sh. Anil Narang. During the search, certain photo/image was seized from the phone of Sh. Anil Narang, marked as Annexure A1 (Exihibit-1 to the statement of Sh. Anil Narang) allegedly belonging to/pertaining to the Appellant. The alleged seized material is placed at page 26 of the paper-book. Relying on the 2 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT seized material the assessment under section 153C of the Act was completed by making an addition of Rs. 1,05,50,000/- under section 69B of the Act, alleging unexplained investment made by the Appellant in cash for acquiring the Shushant Lok Property from Sh. Anil Narang.
2.3 The said assessment was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), who had dismissed the appeal of the Appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), sustaining the addition of Rs.1,05,50,000/-, the appeal is filed before this Tribunal through various grounds of appeal.
3. Ld. Counsel of assessee has primarily submitted that alleged seized material clearly shows that it is not legible. A photocopy of the same was confronted to the Appellant during the course of post search proceedings and her statement was recorded under section 131(1A) on 02.05.2018 i.e., after 4 months from the date of the search. In Q. No. 8 to her statement, the relevant tax authority explained the content of the said photo to the Appellant and asked for her confirmation. While answering to the said question the Appellant denied commenting upon the same, as it was recovered/seized from the mobile phone of Mr. Anil Narang, who would have been in a better position to explain the same. The relevant extract of the statement of Appellant recorded under section 131(1A):
"Q.8 I am showing you a print out of extraction taken from mobile phone of Sh. Anil Narang as Exhibit-I wherein it has been mentioned that the total cost of property B-376, B-Block, 2nd Floor, Sushant Lok-1, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 is Rs. 1.67 crore out of which Rs. 1.23 crore has already been paid and remaining amount of Rs. 43.50 3 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT lakh is balance and Rs.23.50 lakhs have been paid as per the details given below:
(a) Cash - 16,00,000/-
(b) RTGS vide VTR No - 5,00,000/-
(c) P/adv Punjab & Sindh Bank - 1,50,000/-
(d) Cheque____ no. on -1,00,000/-
Punjab & Sindh Bank ____________
Rs.23,50,000/-
Please confirm the above.
Ans. I have seen above paper (Exibit-1) and signed upon it. But I cannot comment upon the amount written on this paper. Sh. Anil Narang would be able to comment upon it."
4. Ld. Counsel has further pointed out that Sh. Anil Narang in response to his statement recorded under section 131(1A) on confronting this document/seized material expressed his inability to understand the document. The relevant extract of the statement is reproduced as under for ready reference:
"Q.14 During the search operation in case of Sh. Navneet Davar and others on 03.01.2018 at your residence M-22, GK-II, Delhi, various imáges were found from your Samsung A9. In this respect, document found as Exhibit-A is being shown to you. Phase give details regarding this Ans. I am unable to understand the document."
5. Thus based on aforesaid it was submitted that the image/photo found during the search and was illegible. In this context, ld. Counsel has submitted that, it is settled legal position that no adverse action can be taken on a person on the basis of illegible document/piece of evidence. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Singla Vs. UOI [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10798 Of 2022]. Reliance is also placed on 4 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT the decision of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the case of M. M. Industries Private Limited vs. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 51687 of 2017], where the order creating the demand of excise duty made on the basis of illegible handwritten paper ledger was set aside. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Harshad S. Mehta vs. DCIT [ITA No. 3386, 3427, 4204, 4310, 5701, 6028 & 6120 (MUM) of 2017], wherein the Tribunal deleted the addition made on the basis of illegible document seized from the premises of third party dehors any corroborative evidence proving the case of the Revenue.
6. In this context it was also submitted that the photo/image seized during the search is a dumb document and addition made on the basis of said document is not sustainable in law. In this context it was pointed out that as per the typed copy of the seized material, relied by AO, the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (forming part of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs) was made allegedly vide some cheque, while the actual payment was made vide RTGS. A perusal of typed copy of the seized material, shows that on multiple occasions * are found mentioned between the words which shows that the seized Receipt could not be deciphered completely and inherits assumption on the part of the Ld. AO.
6.1 Ld. Counsel pointed out that at the bottom of the typed copy of seized material, it is mentioned that the recipient has 'taken' Rs. 43,50,000/- whereas in the same breath the document regards the said figure as 'payable'. Therefore, 5 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT there is a contradiction on the amount of Rs. 43,50,000/- as whether it is payable or already received/taken. The seized receipt is neither dated nor signed by the Appellant or the opposite party. No date was mentioned against any of the payment entries, which is again not possible for a valid receipt to be issued by one party to the other, more so, when the payments were made on different dates. The seized receipt also refers to an agreement to sell dated 11.06.2016 which was never found during the search nor was it enquired about from the searched person in his statement recorded under section 131(1A). it was submitted that Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) ignored that the seized material was confronted to Sh. Anil Narang as well, whose statement recorded under section 131(1A) of the Act, denied receiving any cash payment and affirmed that all the payment made by the appellant related to purchase of property was made through proper banking channel.
6.2 Ld. Counsel has submitted that it is a trite law that no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document more so when no corroborative evidence was found during search. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. D.K. Gupta [308 ITR 230].
7. Ld. Counsel has then submitted that otherwise too the image/photo seized from the phone of Sh. Anil Narang, cannot be admitted as digital evidence in violation of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, rendering the addition made on the basis of said evidence unsustainable and liable to be deleted. The sole seized material, being image/photo retrieved from the mobile 6 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT phone of Sh. Anil Narang, which was extensively relied by the Ld. AO for making the impugned addition, being digital record, cannot be admitted as evidence, as the mandatory certificate under section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not provided to the Appellant, rendering the said image/photo non-est in the eye of the law. In this context certain judicial decision were relied which we will deal in later part.
8. Ld. DR on the contrary relied the orders of ld. Tax authorities below.
9. As the sole ground of assault on the impugned assessment order was on the basis of the challenge of incriminating document not being legible and dumb document, so during the course of hearing, the ld. DR sought opportunity to summon assessment records and produce a legible copy. Accordingly, on 04.12.2024, this Bench had given the ld. DR an opportunity to bring on record a legible copy of the disputed document. This Bench had also requested the ld. DR to confirm if any certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is on record. Thereafter, on 19.12.2024, at the time of final hearing, a more legible copy (colured ) was placed and, at the same time, letter dated 16.12.2004 of the ld. AO is placed on record according to which the incriminating document found and seized was from the mobile of Mr. Anil Narang during the search operations and mentioned in the assessment order as AnnexureA-1 (Samsung Galaxy A9 Pro) for initiating proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act and the ld. AO did not have any certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 on record and the ld. AO mentions that a request has been made to ADIT 7 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT (Investigations), Unit-2(1), New Delhi to provide a copy of certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and the copy of the same will be forwarded when it is received.
10. On aforesaid facts of absence of certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1972, we find that there is relevant provision in Information Technology Act, 2000, clause (t) of sub-section (1) of section 2, which defiend an "electronic record" to means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro file. This definition of electronic record is wide enough to cover person in possession of computer, storage device, server, mobile phone, i- pod or any such device. Then Section 132(1)(iib) of Income Tax Act 1961 was brought on statute vide Finance Act, 2002, with effect from 01-06-2002 to remove difficulties in handling digital evidences found during the course of the search. This section "require any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account or other documents maintained in the form of electronic record as defined in clause (t) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), to afford the authorized officer the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents."
11. The CBDT has issued a Digital Evidence Investigation Manual 2014 and the CBDT has directed that while handling any digital evidence, the procedure has to be in consonance with the provisions of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The relevant para 2.7.3 is reproduced here in below; 8 ITA No.2016/Del/2023
Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT "2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence. By way of the THE SECOND SCHEDULE to the Information Technology Act Amendments to the Indian Evidence Act have been brought in so as to, incorporate reference to Electronic Records along with the document giving recognition to the electronic records as evidence.
Further, special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record have been inserted in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the form of section 65A & 65B, after section 65. These provisions are very important. They govern the integrity of the electronic record as evidence, as well as, the process for creating electronic record. Importantly, they impart faithful output of computer the same evidentiary value as original without further proof or production of original. Accordingly, while handling any digital evidence, the procedure has to be in consonance of these provisions."
12. Section 65B of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (as was applicable to AY/impugned assessment order) states that any information contained in an electronic record which is, inter alia, printed on a paper shall be admissible as evidence in all proceedings, if the following conditions are satisfied: a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is 9 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arju Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, Civil Appeal Nos. 20825- 20826 of 2017 dated 14.07.2020 has held that the non obstante clause in section 65B(1) makes it clear that when it comes to information contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of section 65B.
14. Thus, as per section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Digital Evidence Investigation Manual 2014 of CBDT, the Revenue Authorities have to mandatorily and scrupulously follow the conditions laid down under section 65B(2) and (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to render any documents to be valid in the eyes of law.
15. In this context we find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vetrivel Mines v. ACIT, [2021] 129 taxmann.com 126 (Madras) dated 03.08.2021 allowed the writ petition of assessee and quashed the assessment order passed by the AO for want of Certificate u/s 65B of IT Act by relying electronic 10 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT evidence for completing assessment under Section 153A of the Act. The ITAT, Vishakhapatnam in Polisetty Somasundaram v. DCIT, in ITA Nos. 172 to 180/Viz/2023 [2023]153 taxmann.com 591 (Visakhapatnam Trib.) vide dated 18.08.2023 has held as follows:
"45. On careful perusal of the case laws cited above, we are of the considered view that the Revenue Authorities should mandatorily and scrupulously follow the conditions laid down under section 65B(2) and (4) of the Indian Evidence Act to render any documents to be valid in the eyes of law. In the instant case, the investigation agency obtained a Certificate about the details of the pen drive and the person in whose custody it was seized. Except these details nothing was there in the Certificate and also the said Certificate was not completely filled up by the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Further, from the Certificate obtained under Indian Evidence Act which is placed in Page-11 of Paper Book-2, we find force in the arguments of the Ld. AR that it is not as per the conditions laid down u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
46. After considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V (supra); Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vetrivel Mineral (supra) as well as on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered we that the four conditions stipulated in section 65B(2) i.e., (a) to (d) along with section 65B(4) were not followed while obtaining the Certificate u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 in the case of the assessee which are to be followed mandatorily. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that this Certificate is not a valid Certificate as prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and hence cannot be enforced. Therefore, the Certificate obtained 11 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT in the case of the assessee cannot be regarded as a legally valid certificate u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the same has no recognition in the eyes of law. The information contained in the seized pen drive is could not be considered as admissible evidence as per the provisions of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that such inadmissible seized material is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee on 31-3-2022 is not a valid assessment order in the eyes of law and it deserves to be set aside."
16. An identical issue has been considered by Indore Bench in case IT(SS)A No.03 & 04/Ind/2024 Amrit Homes Versus ACIT-Central -II and M/s Asnani Builders & Developers Ltd. in ITANo.11 to 14/Ind/2014 and relying Visakhapatnam Bench decision in Polisetty Somasundaram (supra), the Indore Bench has held as follows;
"6.6 The Ld. AR has also raised a strong objection against the admissibility of excel sheet as an evidence in view of Section 65B of the Evidence Act which requires that the evidence in the form of electronic record can only be used in the proceedings if a certificate u/s 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is produced. In the case in hand the department has not disputed that no such certificate has been taken or available with the A.O in respect of the excel sheet marked as LPS-1. The CIT(A) has only made a reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chuharmal vs. CIT 172 ITR 250 wherein it was observed that the rules of evidence act do not apply strictly to proceedings under the Income Tax Act but that was only in respect of the admissibility of the evidence without undergoing the process of proving it as strictly as per the Evidence Act but not regarding the procedure to collect digital evidence 12 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT in compliance of the provisions of Evidence Act. The safeguard u/s 65B is provided to avoid any manipulation or loosing the contents in the process of collecting the electronic record."
17. Next in Shri Purushotham Naidu Lekkala Vs. A.C.I.T Central Circle 3(2) Hyderabad vide decision dated 11/06/2024 the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal has dealt with the issue and held as follows.
"4. The learned AR submitted that the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT (A) on the basis of only electronic data , sustained the addition of Rs.60,26,040/-. Relying on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Court/ITAT, he further submitted that the said electronic data cannot be used in isolation for making any addition. He also submitted that no certificate as mandated u/s 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act ("E- certificate") was obtained by the Ld. AO in accordance with the manual on Digital Evidence Investigation issued by the CBDT ("CBDT manual") in the year 2014. Further, no corroborative material have also been brought into the record by the Revenue authorities that the said interest amount of Rs.60,26,040/- have been actually received by the assessee. Hence, he submitted that the action taken by the Revenue Authorities are on the basis of suspicion and without any concrete evidence. Hence the addition made by the Revenue authorities are required to be deleted.
5. Per contra, the learned DR submitted that the CBDT manuals is not issued u/s 119 of the Act and is only recommendatory in nature. He further argued that the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable on the revenue authorities being quasi-judicial authority. Hence the requirement of obtaining E-certificate is not required under the facts of the present case. For this, he relied on the following decisions:13 ITA No.2016/Del/2023
Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT
i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (S) vs. Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Others (S.C), in Civil Appeal No.440-441 of 2020, judgment dated 26.03.2021
ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and Anr (2010) (3 SCC 484) 11 SCC 233.
iii) Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of The State of Telangana vs. P Govind Reddy and 10 Others in W.A No.1105 of 2018 .
5.1 Further, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P) Ltd vs. CIT (A) reported in (2024) 160 Taxmann.com 287 (Mad.) dated 23.02.2024, the Ld. DR submitted that, even if the instruction of the CBDT manual are not followed, if the electronic data obtained are supported by corroborative evidence, addition can be made on the basis of such electronic data. He also submitted that, in this case, the addition has been made on account of interest payable on the amount advanced by the assessee with regard to one dealing of the land and the corresponding sale deed is on the record (Page No 1 to 7 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee). Hence the electronic data corroborated with this sale deed satisfy the ingredients required as per the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (Supra). Hence, he prayed that the orders of the Revenue authorities are to be upheld.
6. We have heard the rival contentions made by both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute on the fact that the Revenue authorities have not filed the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. However as per the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (Supra) as cited by the Ld. DR, the Hon'ble High Court held under Para No.77 (iii) of the order that, the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual has been issued by the CBDT by virtue of powers available u/s 119 of the I.T. Act and hence, the Income Tax Authorities 14 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT and all the other persons employed in the execution of this Act are bound to observe and follow such orders, Instructions and directions issued by CBDT" . The Hon'ble High Court also held that if the procedure as specified under the CBDT Manual have not been followed while relying on the electronic record, the said record must be supported by corroborative evidence. The relevant portions of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court are reproduced as under:
"iii) The Digital Evidence Investigation Manual has been issued by the CBDT by virtue of powers available under Section 119 of the IT Act and hence, the Income Tax Authorities and all the other persons employed in the execution of this Act are bound to observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions issued by CBDT. In the case of Commissioner of Customs (referred supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had culled out the principles, which has to be followed while conducting search and seizure of evidences and the same has been extracted at paragraph No.50 of this order. Hence, it is mandatory for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9753, 9757, 9761 & 11176 of 2023 respondents to follow the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by CBDT while conducting search and seizure and it is not optional.
iv) The electronic data have been collected in .txt files in violation of the provisions of Digital Evidence Investigation Manual.
v) Though the procedures have not been followed while collecting the electronic data in .txt files, the data collected by the respondents can be relied upon only if the said data are supported by the corroborative evidences."
7. It is abundantly clear from the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (Supra) that in the absence of such E- certificate,(65 B Certificate) the electronic data must be supported by corroborative evidences. The sale deed on which the Ld. DR is relying as corroborative evidence does 15 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT not confirm that whether any interest was to be payable or paid to the assessee. Further, there is no reference of paying of on money or cash amount or interest by the assessee in the said sale deed. Hence, under such circumstances, the sale deed cannot be taken as corroborative evidence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the Revenue Authorities has made the addition without obtaining any E- certificate and without any corroborative evidence with regard to the electronic data. Hence, we delete the addition made by the Revenue authorities, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.
8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed."
18. In the instant case, admittedly there is no certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, the evidence in the form of a print out taken from the phone owned by another person, if was to be relied for completion of assessment of assessee, the certificate in terms of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was necessary. That not being there the alleged incriminating document when taken out of case of the ld. AO, nothing is left to draw any inference of payment of any on money amount.
19. Furthermore, in a case like this, where the alleged seized material extract as reproduced in the assessment order seems to be not quite legible and Department had to prepare a special coloured copy of the same, so that this bench can be appraised of the content, that all the more required the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
16 ITA No.2016/Del/2023
20. Even otherwise, if this piece of document is considered, the same has no signatures of the assessee or even Shri Anil Narang. There is no separate piece of evidence establishing the handwriting to be of Shri Anil Narang or the assessee. As we go through the contents there are no corroborating facts to establish that any on money was paid separately. The ld. AO himself mentions that when Shri Anil Narang was confronted with this document and his statement u/s 131(1A) of the Act was recorded, Shri Anil Narang had deposed that he is unable to understand the document. As with regard to the transaction also he had shown his ignorance. There is no independent inquiry also by the AO of the fact that the value of the property was otherwise thrice at Rs.1,67,00,000/- than the amount paid by the assessee of Rs.67,50,000/- by way of banking transactions. Thus being a case of no evidence, the addition is not sustainable under law.
21.. In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee and consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.12.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st December, 2024. dk 17 ITA No.2016/Del/2023 Ritu Tuli, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi 18