Anshu Sahai (Huf), Jaipur,Jaipur vs Acit, Central Circle 2, Jaipur, Jaipur on 3 November, 2025

[Cites 75, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur

Anshu Sahai (Huf), Jaipur,Jaipur vs Acit, Central Circle 2, Jaipur, Jaipur on 3 November, 2025

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"A" JAIPUR

Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI,

vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19

Anshu Sahai (HUF) cuke ACIT,
SP-15 Bhabha Marg Tilak Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-02,
Tilak Nagar, S.O. (Jaipur), Jaipur
Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJHA9662H
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &
MS Ruchika Sogani, Adv.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 16/09/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 03/11/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

These three appeals are filed by the assessee aggrieved from the

three separate order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Jaipur -04 [

for short CIT(A)] for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19 dated

29.01.2025. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arise as against the three

separate order dated 26.03.2024 passed under section 153C of the Income
2
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by ACIT, Central Circle -02, Jaipur [ for short

AO ].

2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 466 to

468/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2016-17 to 2018-19 are inter related, identical on

facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in

each year, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the

agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this

consolidated order.

3. At the outset of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the

matter in ITA No. 466/JP/2025 may be taken as a lead case for discussions

as the issues which are common for the subsequent year be decided

accordingly. On this ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against

taking that case as a lead case. Therefore, for the purpose of the present

discussions, the case of ITA No. 466/JP/2025 for Assessment Year 2016-

17 is taken as a lead case.

4. Before moving towards the facts of the case in the lead case we

would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for
3
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

assessment year 2016-17 in ITA No. 466/JP/2025 on the following

grounds;

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred
in confirming the action of ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of
the IT Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and
against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the
assessment order passed under section 153C being illegal and without
jurisdiction.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred
in upholding the assessment order which was passed without obtaining proper
approval under section 153D of the IT Act, 1961 and making unnecessary
observations in this regard. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified,
arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by
quashing the entire assessment order as absence of proper approval under
section 153D has vitiated the assessment order.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred
in upholding the addition amounting to Rs. 16,21,91,214/- (albeit as part of capital
gains). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the
facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred
in upholding the action of ld. AO in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE
although accepting the additions to be part of capital gains. The action of the ld.
CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may
please be granted by quashing the applicability of the provisions of section
115BBE.

5. The Assessee craves its right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds
on or before the date of hearing.

5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a search

and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax

Department on the members of the Gokul Kripa Group on 19-01-2021.
4
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

During the search, incriminating documents relating to the assessee were

found and seized. It was found that assessee has entered into

unaccounted financial transaction with M/s Gokul Kripa Group. Necessary

satisfaction was drawn by ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur and sent to the AO

having jurisdiction over the assessee for initiating action u/s 153C of the

Act for AY 2015-16 to 2021-22 vide letter no. 368 dated 17.10.2022. The

assessee has filed return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 11.10.2016 at

income of Rs.35,18,520 /-. Thereafter, the case was assessed u/s 143(3) at

income of Rs.2,18,95,010/-. Notice u/s 153C was issued to the assessee

on 18.01.02023 requiring him to comply with the notice by filing return of

income/file the return of income within 30 days of receipt of the notice. In

response to the said notice u/s 153C, a return declaring an income of Rs.2,

18,95,010/- was filed by the assessee on 16.02.2023. The jurisdictional AO

has issued notice u/s 143(2) dated 10.04.2023 and asked to file certain

information/details in support of income during the year under

consideration. Thereafter, the case was centralized to ACIT, Central Circle-

2, Jaipur vide order u/s 127 of PCIT-2, Jaipur vide order dated 13.07.2023.

The assessment proceedings were commenced by issuance of notice u/s

142(1) along with questionnaire on 18.12.2023.
5
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

5.1 In the questionnaire issued by the ld. AO it was contended by the ld.

AO that Gokul Kripa Group accepts on money (in cash) on sales of its plots

in all its ongoing projects. Gokul Kripa Group made payments in cash out of

books while purchasing the land for its projects. This facts were accepted in

the statement recorded. The assessee including his family members also

sold their land to the Group. That Group has developed two schemes

namely Royal Residency Phase-1 and Phase -2 in Sanganer Tehsil, Jaipur

that scheme land was purchased from the assessee and its family

members. During the course of search at one of the business premises of

GokulKripa Group at 1, Shivshanker Colony, near mansarover Metro

Station, Jaipur a computer(Destop PC) was found (PC-3). On examination

of this computer, an excel sheet bearing name excel sheet bearing name

'1. Pay-Exp' was found. The path of the excel sheet is GokulKripa Group

1st Floor Accounts PC-3\image\E HAPPY Prakash Sir Scheme\1. Pay-

Exp.xlsx and the hash value of the image of this PC was

0d848d309d19ac1bobbc523aod295964. This excel sheet contains entries

related to purchase of land for development of various scheme. The entries

of cheque payment as well as cash payment along with names of the party

and dates are duly recorded in the excel sheet. Further the bifurcation of

payment made by the key persons namely Shri Sumer Singh Saini (SSS),
6
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Shri Phool Chand Saini (PCS) Shri Rajesh Kumar (RK) and Shri Ganga

Singh Tanwar (GST) is also recorded in this excel sheet. The extracts of

excel sheet having name 1 Pay Exp and Sheet name RR reflects payment

to the assessee including others in cash also, apart from cheque payments.

The sheets were reproduced in the assessment order by the ld. AO from

page 4 to 14. Ld. AO from that excel sheet noted that M/s. Gokul Kripa

Colonisers & Developers P. Ltd. [GKCDPL] developed two scheme namely

Royal Residency Phase I and II. Ld. AO prepared a table relating to the

entries of the assessee and their family members at page 14 to 18 wherein

details of cheque payment and cash payments were recorded. Thereafter

ld. AO reproduced the ledger account of the assessee in the books of

GKCDPL. The ld. AO based on that tabulation and ledger noted that the

entries noted in excel sheet is exactly the same as recorded in the ledger

so far as it relates to the payment of cheque is concerned and thereby he

tried to establish the authenticity and correctness of the transaction

recorded in the excel sheet.

Based on these observations ld. AO noted that total amount of

payment recorded in the excel sheet produced above is Rs. 125,39,20,400

(as per excel sheet found from the PC of Prakash) including cheque

payment of Rs. 64,32,96,800/- (as per excel sheet found from the PC of
7
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Prakash) and cash payment of Rs. 60,83,46,930/- (as per excel sheet

found from the PC of Prakash) an amount of Rs. 2,21,45,130/- was

recorded in the books of accounts and reflected in ledger produced above

being cash payment for the stamp charges. Thus, the balance cash

payment of Rs. 58,62,01,800/- was not recorded in the regular books of

accounts. Based on the payment made by an account payee cheque ld.

AO in respect of the assessee and his group tabulated the cash payment

and cheque payment made by Gokul Kripa Group at page 28 & 29 of the

assessment order. The chart so prepared reads as follows:

S.No(i) Name of the Amount received Total amount Prop. Amount
assessee(ii) through cheque(iii) received in cash received in cash
(iv) in ratio of
amount received
in cheque(iii*iv/vi)

1 AnshuSahay HUF 25,84,80,000 56,31,38,250 37,43,82,651

2 Dr.MadhuriSahay 1,41,60,000 2,05,09,356

3 Shri AnshuSahay 11,61,60,000 16,82,46,252

Total 38,88,00,000(vi) 56,31,38,250
8
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Based on that tabulation, the ld. AO issued a show cause notices to the

assessee asking as to why the cash receipts of Rs. 37,43,82,651/-

pertaining to A. Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19 against the sale of land may not

considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee

submitted the reply which ld. AO placed on record.

Ld. AO noted that the searched group i.e. Gokul Kripa Group has

purchased land for its project Royal Residency Phase I and II from the

assessee HUF and Ms. Madhuri Sahay. An amount of Rs. 38,88,00,000/-

has been paid to these parties through cheques. Payments mentioned in

cash for Rs. 56,31,38,250/- was considered over and above consideration

paid in lieu of sale of land besides what was recorded in the books of

accounts. The proportionate cash received by the assessee HUF and Ms

Madhuri Sahay was thereby calculated as tabulated herein below:

S.No(i) Name of the Amount received Total amount Prop. Amount
assessee(ii) through cheque(iii) received in cash received in cash
(iv) in ratio of
amount received
in cheque(iii*iv/vi)

1 AnshuSahay HUF 25,84,80,000 56,31,38,250 37,43,82,651

2 Dr.MadhuriSahay 1,41,60,000 2,05,09,356
9
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

3 Shri AnshuSahay 11,61,60,000 16,82,46,252

Total 38,88,00,000(vi) 56,31,38,250

S.No Name of the assessee FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Total
AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19

1 Anshu Sahay HUF 16,21,91,214 17,81,66,880 3,40,24,557 37,43,82,651

2 Dr. Madhuri Sahay 88,85,130 97,60,300 18,63,926 2,05,09,356

3 Shri Anshu Sahay 7,28,88,165 8,00,67,570 1,52,90,517 16,82,46,252

24,39,64,509 26,79,94,750 5,11,79,000 56,31,38,249

Based on this calculation again the assessee was asked to show cause as

to why the aforementioned addition should not be made in his hand. The

assessee submitted his reply which was considered by the ld. AO but was

not found tenable. Ld. AO also went on to observe that the entries made by

the Gokul Kripa group in excel sheet are not part of regular books of

accounts. It is due to search and seizure action carried out in the case of

that group found these unrecorded transactions. Ld. AO thereby also noted

that the assessee failed to furnish any reasons as to how the transactions

made through banking channel as mentioned in excel sheet got duly

matched with the bank statements of the assessee. The ld. AO extracted

those matched transactions at page 37 and 38 of his order. Based on that
10
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

observations ld. Ao noted that the excel sheet is true and correct account

prepared by Gokul Kripa Group for expenditure incurred by them for

purchase of land. As, the transactions made through banking channel are

duly corroborated with the bank statements making it amply clear that the

transactions made in cash had also been executed by the search group

meaning thereby the assessee has received cash payments over and

above the payments received through banking channel. Moreover, the

assessee has failed to respond to the query in this regard and mere denial

without any documentary evidence has no force in the eye of law. The

assessee has challenged the addition u/s 68 of the Act. The addition was

made due to the facts that the cash receipts remained unaccounted and

not part of regular books of accounts. At an appellate state, if it is held by

any appellate authority that the cash receipts by the assessee company

cannot be treated u/s 68 of the Act, then the cash receipts will be taken as

receipts for calculations of income from capital gain for the year under

consideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and

seizure action in "Gokul Kripa Group" was in the form of diaries/ registers

including digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons

of the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that;

a) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein payments
made to the seller of the land including any other expenditure incurred on project
11
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

was mentioned. These details mentioned in these excel sheets includes both
payments made from banking channel and cash paid to the sellers in lieu of sale
of their lands. The unaccounted transaction related to assessee are found
recorded in seized incriminating material i.e. one excel sheet as discussed
above. Therefore, in view of above discussion, it can be concluded that the
proceedings were initiated and additions are being made after considering
documentary evidence that the assessee has entered into unaccounted financial
transactions with the Gokul Kripa Group.

b) Here, it is to mention that the statements of Phool Chand Saini, Director of
M/s Gokul Kripa Colonizers & developers Pvt. Ltd. & key person of Gokul Kripa
Group, were recorded during search on 19.01.2021 at 1, Shivshanker Colony,
near Mansarover Metro Station, Jaipur wherein he has accepted that there were
unaccounted transactions recorded in these seized material which were not
recorded in the regular books of accounts of the Gokul Kripa group companies.
He has elaborated the purpose of these unaccounted cash transactions. He
further accepted that these transactions mentioned in this incriminating material
were in suppressions of "00". Thus, the evidences are further strengthened from
statement of Shri Phool Chand Saini recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act
during search as he has specifically explained that the consideration amount
above the DLC rate on account of purchase of land by the Gokul Kripa Group
was done in cash. Here it is pertinent to mention that the statements recorded on
oath u/s 132(4) of the Act during search are admissible evidence under the
Income-tax Act, 1961.

As discussed supra, in the case of the assessee, certain incriminating

documents related to financial transactions on account of sale of land have

been found and seized during the course of search in case of Gokul Kripa

Group. Notices u/s 153C was issued after following due process and notice

u/s 142(1)/144 were issued to the assessee to explain the transactions

entered in with Gokul Kripa Group. The assessee has sold land situated at

Village Sarangpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur to M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers

& Developers Pvt. Ltd. for consideration of Rs.25,84,80,000/- as mentioned

in registered deed (total sale of land in F.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17) and cash
12
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

receipts of Rs.37,43,82,651/- (Rs 16,21,91,214/- for A.Y. 2016. 17, Rs.

17,81,66,880/- for A.Y.2017-18 and Rs.3,40,24,557/- in A.Y. 2018-19) that

were received over and above the consideration received through banking

channel. However, assessee failed to explain the unaccounted financial

transactions. Thus, as tabulated in the assessment order at page 35 of the

assessment order wherein it has been calculated that the assessee has

received cash of Rs. 16,21,91,214/- from M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers &

Developers Pvt. Ltd. and failed to explain nature of receipt. Therefore, the

receipt of Rs. 16,21,91,214 /- was treated as unexplained cash credits and

additions of Rs 16,21,91,214/- u/s 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE

of the Act.

6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an

appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant

finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:

Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3

5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the
appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order
for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant
are being discussed and decided as under:-

In these ground of appeal the appellant has stated the date of transfer of seized
material by the AO of the searched person to the AO of the appellant on
17.10.2022 as the deemed date of search. And has contended that since section
153C is applicable to the search and seizure action which took place before the
01.04.2021 hence the action could not have been taken under this section.
13
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

The phrase "for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment
year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is
made and has been inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 153C of the Act by the
Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2017 before the phrase "for the relevant
assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A". This has
clarified the law beyond any confusion that date of search mentioned in section
153A is the relevant date of search for the purpose of determining the six years or
ten years or the relevant years under the section 153C of the Act.

The judgement in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-14 v. Jasjit Singh
[2023] 155 taxmann.com 155 (SC)[26-09-2023] is in the context of the
assessment years 2009-10 which is much earlier than the amendment in sub-
section (1) in section 153C of the Act by the Finance Act 2017. The amendment
of Finance Act 2017 has been done in sub-section 153C(1) of the Act to
specifically provide for which six assessment years as the amendment specifically
refers to the years mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act to
delink the years to be assessed from the provisio to section 153C(1).

The amendment by Finance Act 2017 supports the stand taken by the Revenue
in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra) that "date referred under proviso to Section
153(1) is relatable to the second proviso to Section 1534, only as far as it
concems abatement and that "the proviso [to Section 153(c)(1)] is confined in its
application to the question of abatement"

Proviso below sub-section (1) of section 153C of the Act was inserted by the
Finance Act 2005 w.r.e.f. 01.06.2003 In this regard the extract of the
"Memorandum" is as under.-

Under the existing provisions of section 153A, where the Assessing Officer is
satisfied that books of account or documents or assets seized under section 132
or requisitioned under section 132A belong to a person other than a person in
whose case search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A was
made, he shall handover the same to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction
over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such
other person under section 153A. Second proviso to section 153A provides that
assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling
within the period of six assessment years referred to in the said section pending
on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or on the date of making
of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.
14
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

It is proposed to amend the said section so as to provide that in case of such
other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section
132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to section
153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of
account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer
having the jurisdiction over such other person.

In this regard the extract of the "Notes on Clauses" is as under-

Clause 47 seeks to amend section 153C of the Income-tax Act relating to
assessment of income of any other person.

Under the existing provisions of section 153A, where the Assessing Officer is
satisfied that books of account or documents or assets seized under section 132
or requisitioned under section 132A belong to a person other than a person in
whose case search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A was
made, he shall handover the same to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction
over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such
other person under section 153A Second proviso to section 153A provides that
assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling
within the period of six assessment years referred to in the said section pending
on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition
under section 132A, as the case may be shall abate.

From the above referred 'memorandum' and 'Notes on clauses' the legislative
intent behind the introduction of the proviso in humble understanding appears to
be with reference to the abatement.

Provisio below sub-section (1) of section 153C of the Act was inserted by the
Finance Act 2005 w.r.e.f. 01.06.2003. This provisio reads as under:-

"Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation
of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in
15
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as
reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets
seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such
other person:"
(emphasis supplied)

Second Provisio to 153A(1) provides for the abatement and reads as under.-

"Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any
assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the
relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending on the
date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under
section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate:"

Thus the provisio below the sub-section (1) of section 153C pertains to or is for
the purposes of abatement in view of the amendment by the Finance Act 2017.

As per the CBDT Circular No 3 of 2006, on the title: FINANCE ACT, 2005
EXPLANATORY NOTES ON PROVISIONS RELATING TO DIRECT TAXES
(OTHER THAN BANKING CASH TRANSACTION TAX AND FRINGE BENEFIT
TAX,) the amendment is explained as under-

"3.26 Rationalisation of the provisions relating to assessment of income in search
and seizure cases - Under the existing provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1)
of section 153B, an Assessing Officer is required to make an order of assessment
or re-assessment of total income of the six assessment years preceding the
assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search under section 132
is conducted or requisition under section 132A is made, within a period of two
years from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorizations for
search, or for requisition was executed.

Clause (b) of the said sub-section provides that an Assessing Officer shall make
an order of assessment or re-assessment of total income of the assessment year
relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition under
section 132A is made, within a period of two years from the end of the financial
year in which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or
requisition under section 132A was executed.
16
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

The time-limit provided in the aforesaid clauses (a) and (b) is also applicable for
making assessment or re-assessment in the case of other person referred to in
section 153C.

With a view to rationalize the above provisions in respect of the other person
referred to in section 153C, a proviso has been inserted in sub-section (1) of the
said section 1538 providing that in the case of such other person the time-limit for
making assessment or re-assessment of total income of the assessment years
referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of the said sub-section shall be two years from
the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorizations for search
under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed or one year
from the end of the financial year in which books of account or documents or
assets seized or requisitioned are handed over to the Assessing Officer having
jurisdiction over such other person, whichever is later.

The existing provisions of section 153C provide that where the Assessing Officer
is satisfied that books of account or documents or assets seized under section
132 or requisitioned under section 132A belong to a person other than a person
in whose case search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A was
made, he shall hand over the same to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction
over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such
other person under section 153A Second proviso to section 153A provides that
any assessment or re-assessment, relating to any assessment year falling within
the period of six assessment years referred to in the said section, pending on the
date of initiation of search under section 132 or on the date of making of
requisition under section 132A, shall abate. The existing section 153C has been
renumbered as sub-section (1) of the said section. Further, a new proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 153C has been inserted providing that in the case of such
other person, the reference to the date of initiation of search under section 132 or
making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to section 153A,
shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or
documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having the
jurisdiction over such other person.

A new sub-section (2) has been inserted in section 153C providing that in case of
such other person for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which
search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A,
where (a) no return of income has been furnished by such person and no notice
under sub-section (1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of
income has been furnished by such person but no notice under sub-section (2) of
17
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

section 143 has been served and the limitation of serving the notice under sub-
section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or re-assessment, if
any, has been made, before the date of receiving of books of account or
documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having
jurisdiction over such other person, such assessing officer shall issue the notice
and assess or re-assess total income of such other person for such assessment
year in the manner provided in section 153A. The provisions of the newly inserted
sub-section (2) would apply where books of account or documents or assets
seized or requisitioned referred to in sub-section (1) of the said section 153C,
have been received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other
person after the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1)
of section 139 for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which
search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A.

In other words, the amendments brought in section 153B and section 1530 shall
have the following effects in relation to assessment or reassessment in case of
other persons referred to in section 153C-

A period of one year from the end of financial year in which the books of account
or documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed

(i) over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person shall
be available for the purposes of making assessment or reassessment under
section 153A;

Any assessment or reassessment for any assessment year falling within a period
of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to
the previous year in which search is

(ii) conducted or requisition is made pending on the date on which books of
account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned are received by the
Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, shall abate;

(ii) For assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is
conducted or requisition is made, the assessment or reassessment shall be made
under section 153A if following conditions are satisfied:-

seized or requisitioned books of account or documents or assets are received by
the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over
18
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

(a) such other person after the due date for furnishing retum under sub-section
(1) of section 139 in his case for such assessment year, and

(b) before the date of receipt of seized or requisitioned books of account or
documents or assets by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other
person-

(i) no return of income has been furnished by such other person under sub-
section (1) of section 139 and no notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 has
been issued to him for such assessment year, or

(ii) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice
under sub-section (2) of section 143 for such assessment year has been served
and the limitation of serving such notice has expired, or

(iii) assessment or reassessment, if any, for such assessment year has been
made.

These amendments have been brought into effect retrospectively from 1st June,
2003."
(emphasis supplied)

As per the CBDT Gircular also, in case of section 163C of the Act, assessments
of the preceding six years as pending on the date on which books of account or
documents or assets seized or requisitioned are received by the Assessing
Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, shall abate

In view of the above discussion if in case the date of transmission of documents
from the assessing officer of the searched person to the assessing officer of the
other person is treated as the date of search for all and every purposes
whatsoever then it would lead to the following consequences:-

(i)coverage of those years in the set of 10 years of the section 153C of the Act for
which there is not even a possibility of seized material from the search of the
other person. For example if the actual search and seizure action is taken place
in March 2015 and the transmission of the documents from the AO of the
searched person to the AO of the other person has taken place in April 2017, and
the 10 years are to be AY 2008-09 to 2017-18 in that case it is impossible and
they will not be any seized material for the period FY 15-16 and FY 16-17 (AY
19
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

2016-17, 2017-18) whereas these two years falling the set of 10 years of the
section 153C of the Act.

Even though in the present case the assessment years of the appellant 2016-17
to 2018-19 falls within the period of block of 6 years as well as 10 years and at
the same time the income escaping assessment is represented in the form of
asset as the income which has escaped assessment is the unaccounted cash
received by the appellant. In this regard reliance is also placed on the judgement
of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhavin Kishorebhai Zinzuwadia v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle 2(3) [2024] 169
taxmann.com 505 (Gujarat)[02-12-2024] as per ratio of this judgement, the
validity of the notice is to be seen w.r.t. the 10 years (and not merely 6 years) as
provided in section 153C.

(ii)it is a settled legal principle that the interpretation should not render any
provision of the law as otiose. The phrase "for six assessment years immediately
preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is
conducted or requisition is made and has been inserted in sub-section (1) of
Section 153C of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2017. These
amendments needs to be given full play in fulfilling in the interpretation. However
if the proviso below subsection (1) is taken to mean that the 6 years/ 10 years are
to be counted from the date of the handing over of the search material in that
case the specific amendment of 2017 does not get any meaning and is rendered
as otiose.

(iii) it is important to note that Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income-tax -III v. Calcutta Knitwears [2014] 43 taxmann.com
446 (SC)/[2014] 223 Taxman 115 (SC) (MAG)/[2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC)/[2014]
267 CTR 105 (SC)[12-03-2014] has held that the satisfaction note for initiating
action in case of person other than the searched person can be recorded (i.e. the
proceedings can be initiated) even after the completion of assessment in the case
of the person in whose case the said section had taken place Also in this regard
is no adverse inference regarding the period of the block or the years covered
under the block. The implication of the same is that extended time had already
been provided for going back in time with reference to the actual date of search
and seizure action.

It has been held in the case of LKS Gold House (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
of Income-tax [2024] 161 taxmann.com 604 (Madras) [18-01-2024] as under:-
20
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

87. There is no time limit prescribed for the issuance of satisfaction note(s) under
Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In terms of decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in CIT-III v. Calcutta Knitwears. Ludhiana [2014] 6 SCC 444,
satisfaction notes under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be
prepared by the "Assessing Officer" of the "searched person":

(a) At the time of or along with the initiation of proceedings under Section 158BC
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the "searched person", or

(b) In the course of assessment of the "searched person" under Section 158BC of
the Income Tax Act, 1961; or

(b) Immediately after the completion of the assessment proceedings under
Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 196 against the "searched person"
.................

101. It is only during the course of the assessment proceedings, of the "searched
person" the Assessing Officer of the "searched person" will be in a position to
establish the transaction which provides a link between the "other person with the
"searched person" with their former PAN. It is only thereafter, the "satisfaction
note(s)" can be prepared to persuade the "Assessing Officer of the "other person"
to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 153C of the IT Act, 1961.
It has also been held in the above referred case of LKS Gold (supra) that:-

106. Even if the Assessing officer of the searched person" and that of the "other
person" Le the petitioner were same, it has to be construed that the officer
concerned was wearing two different hats one as the "assessing officer" of the
"searched person and one as the "assessing officer" of the "other person". "other
person". It would be different if they are different in which case it is the date of
actual handing over of the books of account or documents or assets seized or
requisitioned.

107. Merely because, the assessing officers are one and the same for both
"searched person" and the "other person" ipso facto would not mean that the
moment the documents were seized either by the investigating team and handed
over to the assessing officer for completing the assessment under section 153A
of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the limitation for completing the assessment in the
case of "other person" would start running under 3rd proviso to section 153B (1)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
21
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

(iv) In case the search and seizure action takes place in last week of March 2021
and the seized material is transferred by the AO of the search the assessee to the
AO of the other assessee in the month of April 2021 apparently in the case of the
other person on the date of search would be treated as April 2021 going by the
interpretation given by the appellant and in such a situation section 153C will not
apply as per the interpretation of the appellant due to the sunset clause. This
interpretation is against the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Calcutta Knitwears (supra) as discussed in earlier paras.

(v) the sunset clause has been provided in separate subsection (3) and it does
not refer to any deeming date. This subsection refers to initiation of search action
or requisition of books of accounts etc. on or after 01-04-2021. In the section
there is a clear-cut reference to search initiated under section 132 or requisition
under section 132A of the Act. Hence the concept of deemed date of search is
not applicable to sub section (3). Thus, this subsection further adds to the above
discussed amendment of 2017 regarding the crucial date of search for the
purposes of applicability of section 153C of the Act. In case the deeming date of
search is treated as the date of search for all purposes provided in subsection (1),
in that case there arises a conflict between subsection (1) and subsection (3),
which can be resolved by taking the date of search as provided in 2017
amendment is the actual date of search irrespective of the deeming date of
search as provided in the proviso below the subsection (1).

The above judgement also needs to be considered in the interpretation of the
identifying the block of 10 years of the section 153C of the Act. There are
numerous judgements wherein it has been held that provisions of section 158BD
and 153C are in substance similar and in section 158BD the block period is not
dependent upon the date of transfer of seized material.

In view of the above discussion dismissed. these grounds of appeal of the
appellant are hereby dismissed.

Ground No. 4

7.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the
appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order
for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant
are being discussed and decided as under:-
22
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

In the ground of appeal the appellant has mentioned the "no proper satisfaction
note was recorded". The implied implication is that the satisfaction note has been
perused by the appellant and the same is not found to be proper by the appellant.
However the appellant has not with reference to the contents of the satisfaction
note as to why the satisfaction note is not proper. Thus the contention of the
appellant is a bald and vague and is liable to be dismissed.

The appellant has also mentioned in the ground of appeal that 'There is no
mention in the satisfaction note that entries/material found during the search of
Gokul Kripa Group has any bearing on determination of total income of the
assessee. The implied meaning of the same is the the satisfaction note has been
produced by the appellant and after perusal of the same the above referred
contention of not being proper is that there is no mention in the satisfaction note
that the contents of the search material has a bearing on the determination of the
total income of the assessee.

However there is no legal requirement that the assessing authority is required to
expressly state so in the satisfaction note. What is to be seen is that whether the
intent of the satisfaction note satisfies the intent of the section 153C of the Act.

It is important in the facts of the case that in the appellant submissions neither the
appellant has submitted the copy of the satisfaction note nor the appellant has
highlighted from the contents of the satisfaction note as to how the same is in
violation of the section 153C of the Act. Conversely in the submissions in the
appeal the appellant has made contradictory submissions. In the appellant
submissions the appellant has stated that the satisfaction note was not received
by the appellant. The submission is against the specific ground of appeal raised
by the appellant and the new claim made in the appeal in this regard is beyond
the scope of the ground of appeal raised by the appellant and also contradictory
to the ground of appeal itself. The same cannot be entertained. It is also
important to note that in the appellant submissions no prayer has been made
requesting for the copy of the satisfaction note and a mere statement has been
made. This shows that the appellant is not interested in getting the copy of the
satisfaction note and this further supports the above discussion that the copy of
satisfaction note is already available with the appellant

Once having accepted the notice and having participated in the proceedings
thereby submitting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, considering the
settled principles of law, the assessee cannot take a position that there is a
23
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

jurisdictional defect in the Assessing Officer proceeding to adjudicate the notice,
by alleging defect in the notice.

Such plea can be accepted only when a demonstrable prejudice, was to be set
out by the assessee, which would go to the root of the adjudication. If there is
nothing on prejudice being pointed out to the Court except for bald plea of defect
in the notice, such plea as made by the assessee.cannot be accepted

It is the principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in
accepting any plea of breach of principles of natural justice, such plea would be
required to be tested on the aspect of prejudice, as observed in para 62 in case of
Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com
341 (Bombay)/[2024] 461 ITR 483 (Bombay) [11-01-2024].

It is abundantly clear from the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme
Court as noted above, that a technical plea of breach of principles of natural
justice cannot be taken, unless a case of prejudice has been made out, and if no
case of prejudice is made out, certainly a plea of breach of principles of natural
justice would be a hollow plea or a plea in futility. This for the reason, that a
person complaining of breach of principles of natural justice needs to show that
curing such breach, would culminate the proceedings with a different
consequence favourable to the assessee. It is only after considering such pleas, it
would be a fair decision, rendering justice to the complainant, as observed in para
62 in case of Veena Estates (supra).
It is principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natwar Singh v
Director of Enforcement [2010] 13 SCC 255, wherein the Supreme Court has
observed that there can never be a technical plea of breach of principles of
natural justice and plea would be a realistic plea which can be proved on the
principle of prejudice.

is either not genuine or is belated and/or a technical plea being agitated. In
Natwar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing on the test of
real prejudice, observed that there is no such thing as "technical infringement of
natural justice", as what is necessarily to be seen is that there must have been
caused some real prejudice to the complainant. It was observed that the
requirements of natural justice must depend inter alia as involved in the facts and
circumstances of the case and the nature of the inquiry, etc. (para 41 in case of
Veena Estates (supra)) The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
are required to be noted which read thus

"26 Even in the application of the doctrine of fair play there must be real flexibility.
There must also have been caused some real prejudice to the complainant; there
is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The
requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case,
the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject
matter to be dealt with and so forth. Can the Courts supplement the statutory
procedures with requirements over and above those specified? In order to ensure
a fair hearing. Courts can insist and require additional steps as long a such steps
would not frustrate the apparent purpose of the legislation."

In view of the above discussion this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.

Ground No. 5

8.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the
appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order
for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant
are being discussed and decided as under:-

The appellant has contended that the procedure as per section 65A & 65B of the
Evidence Act has not been followed by the assessing authority. However the
contention of the appellant is mere based on presumptions and assumptions.
Further the appellant has stated that the learned AO has not mentioned in the
said section that steps were taken in this regard. However there is no requirement
to record such satisfaction in the satisfaction note. There is no requirement in the
law in this regard

Commissioner of Income-tax 12024] 161 taxmann.com 604 (Madras [18-01-2024)
Further it has been held in the case of LKS Gold House (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy as
under-
25
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

71. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any
Court including Courts martial, [other than Courts-martial convened under the
Army Act (44 & 45 Vict., c. 58)] [the Naval Discipline Act (29 & 30 Vict 109]: or 6[*]
the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934).] [or the Air Force Act (7 Geo.
5, c. 51)). It does not apply to even proceedings before an arbitrator. Provisions of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to a Quasi judicial proceedings before
a Quasi-judicial officer such as Assessing Officer under various Tax Law or
Appellate Authority and Tribunal under them.
..............

73. These provisions are relevant only for civil and criminal proceedings before
the court of law. As far as Assessment proceedings are concemed, the Assessing
Officers are not governed by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

74. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v.
State, MANU/SC/0282/23 and in the case of P.V. Anwar v. P.K Basheer, 2014
AIR SCW 5695 cited are not relevant as they deal with criminal proceedings
before the Court.

75, The Assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 before an
Assessing Officer is not a judicial proceeding It is a Quasi judicial proceeding
before a Quasi judicial officer. Therefore, the provisions of The Evidence Act,
1872 particularly special provisions relating to evidence relating to Section 65A,
Section 65B and Section 66 are not relevant.

76. The decision of this court in the case of Vetrivel Madras v. ACIT, [2021] 129
taxmann.com 126/282 Taxman 321/437 ITR 178 (Madras) fails to note that
Section 658 cannot be invoked in a quasi-judicial proceedings as the assessing
officers are not governed by strict rules of evidence. Therefore, I am unable to
follow the view of the Court in Vetrivel Madras v. ACIT, ITR 178 (Madras). [2021]
129 taxmann.com 126/282 Taxman 321/437

77. The definition of "Books and Books of Accounts" in Section 2(12A) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, at the time when the search was conducted at the
premises of the "searched person" under section 132 of the Income Tax Act.
1961 on 10.11.2020, i.e., before amendment and after amendment to Section 2 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.04.2022
read as under:-
.................
26
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

78. Since the definition uses the word "includes" it should be given a wide
connotation. Mere substitution of phrase "in the written form or as print-outs of
data stored" with "in the written form or in electronic form or in digital form or as
print-outs of data stored in such electronic form or in digital form or in" will not
mean that the information that was stored in a floppy disk, tape or pen drive or
any other form of electro-magnetic data storage device did not qualify as books
and books of account for the purpose of section 2(12A) of the IT Act, 1961.

79. The amendment to the definition of "Books and Books of Accounts to clause
(12A) to Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by The Finance Act. 2022 w.e.f
01.04.2022 by substituting the words "in written form or as print-outs of data
stored" with "in written form or in electronic form or in form or in digitial form or as
print-outs of data stored in such electronic form or in digital form" was intended to
merely align the definition with the current practice on account of the
advancement of technology and its widespread utility in daily conduct of business
for maintaining books of accounts. Today books of accounts are also maintained
in "electronic form" by a significant section of the assessees in the current age as
is evident from explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance Act. 2022 in
"Books and Books of Accounts to clause (12A) to Section 2 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961.

80. The Amendment to the definition of "books and books of accounts" in clause
(12A) to Section 2 of the IT Act, 1961 is clarificatory and therefore, retrospective.
81. The expression print-outs of data stor MEN would include pdf copies of the
print-outs in electronic form or in digital form. At the time when the search was
completed on 10.11.2020 not only print outs of data stored in a floppy disk, tape,
pen drive or any other form of electro-magnetic data storage device was included
in the definition of "Books and Books of Accounts also other forms of storage
implying that the informations stored in such form of electro-magnetic data search
devicse such as san disk, hard disk etc., already quantified as "Books and Books
of Accounts".

82. The amended definition includes books of accounts in electronic form or in
digital form or scanned copies of data or printouts of data stored in digital or
electronic form.

83. Therefore, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
there was a jurisdictional error in invoking Section 153C cannot be accepted and
is rejected.
(emphasis supplied)
27
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

In the above judgement, inter-alia, it has been held that in this regard the
provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable to the income tax proceedings and
further that the amendment to the definition of "books and books of accounts" in
clause (12A) to Section 2 of the IT Act, 1961 is clarificatory and therefore,
retrospective.

Further, there is a well laid down procedure and protocols are strictly followed by
the department regarding seized documents and it is very unlikely that the search
data can be tempered with by any officials of the Revenue department and once,
the information has been received from another Assessing officer, there is a
presumption that such data and information is shared on "as is" basis and
therefore, where there is no basis for raising any suspicion in the mind of the
Assessing officer, no further action is required to be taken regarding verifying the
authencity of the data so received and recording any satisfaction in this regard.
Further, officials of the Revenue are Government officials and are acting in their
official duty and they do not have any private motive unlike the appellant. Such
officials have no motive and reason to change the contents of the seized material.

It is merely an apprehension on the part of the assessee appellant and the same
cannot be a basis for not relying on the data so collected and received by the
Assessing officer and which forms part of the assessment records.

Further the appellant has not shown with the copy of the submissions made
during the assessment proceedings that such objection was raised during the
assessment proceedings. This itself shows that this is a fresh objection raised
during the appeal and also the same has been raised without any basis and is
merely based on hypothetical presumption and is

thus liable to be rejected on this aspect also.

cound of app In view of the above discussion this ground of appeal is hereby
dismissed.

Ground No. 6

9.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the
appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment
appellant are being discussed and decided as under:-order for the year under
consideration. The contentions/submissions of the
28
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

In submissions the appellant has mentioned that "nowhere in the names of the
recipients of the on-money, name of assessee appellant is appearing This shows
that the appellant is havig the seized material with him. However the copy of the
seized material has not been placed on record of the appeal by the appellant. The
details of transactions of the unaccounted payments are mentioned in the seized
material.

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Md. Warasat Hussain [1987] 35
Taxman 227 (Patna)/[1988] 171 ITR 405 (Patna)/[1988] 67 CTR 75 (Patna) (10-
09-1987] it was held by Hon'ble Patna High Court as under-

"This was a matter with the special knowledge of the assessee. The Tribunal could not
be expected to produce the sale deed. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted
that even if the assessee did not produce the original sale deed, the revenue could have
obtained certified copy of the sale deed from the registration office and disproved the
stand of the assessee that the land had been sold really for a sum higher than Rs.
49.500. This does not lie in the mouth of the assessee. No Court or the Tribunal should
countenance an assessed the the attitude of failure to produce relevant material and ask
the adversary to disprove it. This attitude was decried by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in
McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC)."

Further as referred in the assessment order, the appearing in the seized
materialME TAX DEPARTMEference to the appellant is

COMPLETE & FULL STATEMENT OF PARTIES IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH
ACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE-

The appellant has contended that complete statement of all the concerned person
were never provided to the assessesee. It is also important to note that in the
appellant submissions no prayer has been made requesting for the copy of such
statements and a mere statement has been made. This shows that the appellant
is not interested in getting the copy of the statements and apparently those are
already available with the appellant.

In the notices issued and vide specific noting on ordersheet, the appellant was
requested to file the copies of submissions made before the assessing authority.
However the copies filed are mere printouts and do not bear any signatures
neither in original nor in photocopy and also does not have any attestation, and
can't be treated as copies of the submissions made during assessment
proceedings.
29
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Even though the appellant has made a statement in the submission that the
statement copies were asked during the course of assessment proceedings
however in the submission the appellant has not highlighted any paper book page
or any particular submission dated before the assessing authority and as such the
contention of the appellant is not verifiable and is an open-ended submission
liable to be rejected.

As per the legal principles the evidence relied upon by the assessing authority is
required to be provided to the assessee. In the present case the relevant part of
the statements which have been referred by the learned AO have been provided
to the appellant. Thus the satisfaction of the legal requirement is done. At the
same time the contention of the appellant that complete full statement is required,
in this regard it is important to note that the proceedings in the case of appellant
are under section 153C of the Act i.e. appellant is not the person in whose case
the search action had taken place and the appellant is asking for the complete
statement of a third person who very likely would have replied to several other
issues and facts in the statement which have got no connection with the
appellant. The right to privacy of such person in whose case the search action
had taken place is also required to be preserved. And a balance is to be arrived
at between the right of the assessee appellant and the right of the persons in
whose case the search action had taken place.

The appellant has also not shown that why the complete and full statement is
required whereas the relevant part pertaining to the transaction of the appellant
has been provided to the appellant. The objection of the appellant is mere
technical and does not have any substantive substantive justifica justification.

consequence favourable to the assessee. It is only after considering such pleas, it
would be a fair decision, rendering justice to the complainant, as observed in para
62 in case of Veena Estates (supra).

It is principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natwar Singh
v. Director of Enforcement [2010] 13 SCC 255, wherein the Supreme Court has
observed that there can never be a technical plea of breach of principles of
natural Justice and plea would be a realistic plea which can be proved on the
principle of prejudice.

It is a settled principle of law that any breach of the principles of natural justice
cannot be addressed by a straight jacket formula. Any complaint of breach of
principles of natural justice would be required to be considered in the facts of the
case. When the facts of the case would demonstrate it, to be an undisputed
position, that no real prejudice was caused to a party aggrieved by an order,
being alleged to be breach of the principles of natural justice, the Court would
certainly not interfere. Such complaint and/or a genuine grievance of the breach
of principles of natural justice accompanied with the prejudice it would cause, is
required to be made with utmost promptness. Any delay in making such
complaint or raising a grievance would give rise to a position that such grievance
is either not genuine or is belated and/or a technical plea being agitated. In
Natwar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing on the test of
real prejudice, observed that there is no such thing as "technical infringement of
natural justice", as what is necessanly to be seen is that there must have been
caused some real prejudice to the complainant. It was observed that the
requirements of natural justice must depend inter alia as involved in the facts and
circumstances of the case and the nature of the inquiry, etc. (para 41 in case of
Veena Estates (supra)) The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
are required to be noted which read thus:

"26. Even in the application of the dcontrine of fair play there must be real
flexibility. There must also have been caused some real prejudice to the
complainant, there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural
justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of
the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the
subject matter to be dealt with and so forth. Can the Courts supplement the
statutory procedures with requirements over and above those specified? In order
to ensure a fair hearing, Courts can insist and require additional steps as long a
such steps would not frustrate the apparent purpose of the legislation."
31
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

In the facts of the case, considering the totality of the legal jurisprudence on the
issue and the conduct of the appellant, the appellant is not entitled to the
complete and full statement of the persons in whose case the search action had
taken place.

CROSS EXAMINATION:-

The appellant has also raise the contention that the cross examination of the
persons in whose case the search action taken place was not provided to the
appellant. Even though the appellant has made a statement in the submission
that the cross examination were asked during the course of assessment
proceedings however the appellant has not highlighted any paper book page or
any particular submission dated before the assessing authority and as such the
contention of the appellant is not verifiable and is an open-ended submission
liable to be rejected.

Further, the evidence against the assessee appellant in the present case is from
the person with whom the assessee appellant has carried out the transaction.
The first onus is on the assessee appellant to prove such evidence as incorrect
as this is a party with whom the assessee appellant had done the transaction.
The onus is on the appellant to have produced such person before the learned
AO for cross examination. In the facts of the case, such party should be the
evidence of the assessee appellant and assessee appellant should have
produced him before the assessing authority as it is the claim of the assessee
appellant that the evidence produced by him (assessee) is correct Proving the
genuineness and for the same producing the party before the Id. AO for cross
examination is the onus of the assessee.

In view of the above vide order sheet sheet n noting the appellant was provided
specific opportunity to prove the genuineness through the evidences from the
buyers and their representatives
32
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

In this regard the appellant has filed the reply online on the date of 13.01.2025.
The appellant has even failed to file the confirmations. The appellant has
expressed its inability to obtain anything from the buyers and their
representatives. The appellant has stated that it is no connect or control with the
buyers or their representatives. Whereas considering the importance of the issue
for the appellant, the appellant should have produced the confirmations from the
buyers and also should have produced the parties for cross examination.

It is also important to note that the appellant has not placed on record any
correspondence with the buyers of the property in this regard that what effort was
made by the appellant to obtain the confirmation and to bring them for cross
examination. This shows that the appellant has deliberately not taken any steps
which further goes on to support the findings of the assessment order regarding
the unaccounted income of the appellant

The appellant has merely relied upon the preliminary documents like the
registered value of the property etc. However the evidences with the assessing
authority is over and above the preliminary documents

The evidences and the findings on the basis of these evidenons with the
assessing authority are that the appellant received unaccounted cash payment
over and above the value declared in the registered sale document. Thus the
evidences and the documents which are on record and only speaks of recorded
and accounted findings of the assessing authority cannot be rebutted with the
help of those transaction and does not speak of unaccounted transaction.

It is held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Mali
v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2003] 132 Taxman 629 (Rajasthan)/[2002] 256
ITR 536 (Rajasthan)/[2002] 176 CTR 381 (Rajasthan) that "There is no provision
for permitting a cross-examination of the person, whose statement is recorded
during the survey and that if factors like "location of the shop, past history, various
defects in the books of account are also used then the estimation of sales cannot
be said to have been made solely on the basis of the statements of the witnesses
recorded during the survey and that the conclusion arrived at by the assessing
authority and modified by the Appellate Commissioner is based on the material
on record.

Whether in a particular case, the particular party should ar case, the particular
party should have t have the right to cross-examine or not depends upon the facts
and circumstances of a partic case. This is so, because the right to cross-
33
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

examine is not necessarily a part of reasonable opportunity, as ruled by the
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mahindra Nath Chatterjee vs. Collector
(1977) TLR 1751. Identical is the view of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in the
case of T. Devasahaya Nadar vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad), and it has been
held that

"It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the IT Department cannot rely
upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination.

An ITO occupies the position of a quasi-judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of
the Evidence Act, but he must act in consonance with natural justice, and one such rule
is that he should not use any material against an assessee without giving the assessee
an opportunity to meet it. He is not bound to divulge the source of his information. There
is no denial of natural justice if the ITO refuses to produce an information for cross-
examination though if a witness is examined in the presence of the assessee, the
assessee must be allowed to cross-examine him."

It would be pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of
Kanungo & Co. vs. Collector of Customs (1983) ELT 1486 (SC) (as observed by
the Hon'ble ITAT, Bombay 'E' Bench in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs ACIT:
(1998) 65 ITD 380), has rejected plea of the assessee that all the persons from
whom enquiries were alleged to have been made by the authorities should have
been produced to enable it to cross-examine them and held that

In our opinion, the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like
this the persons who have been given Information. should be examined in the
presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on
the statement made before the customs authorities. Accordingly, we hold that
there is no force in the third contention of the appellant.

There is no force in the second point because we do not read the impugned order
as having wrongly placed the burden on the appellant. What the impugned order
does is that it refers to the evidence on the record which militates against the
version of the appellant and then states that the appellant had not been able to
meet the inferences arising therefrom. In our opinion, the High Court was right in
holding that the burden of proof had shifted on to the appellant after the Customs
authorities had informed appellant of the results of the enquiries and he enquiries
and investigations.

The relevant extract of the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT in GTC Industries Ltd. v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 65 ITD 380 (Bombay) [28-02-1995
34
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

wherein judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts have also been
considered is as under-

"89. In the case of Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (supra). It was held as under (at
page 488):

"Ends of justice are not satisfied only when the accused in a criminal case is
acquitted. The Community acting through the State and the Public Prosecutor is
also entitled to justice. The cause of the Community deserves equal treatment at
the hands of the Court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The Community of
the State is not a persona-non-grata whose cause may be treated with disdain.
The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the
economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in
the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is
committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal
profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the
interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust
and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed
manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes
with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy
and National interest."

90. In the case of Kishanlal Agarwalla (supra). The Court held:

"Ordinarily the principle of natural justice is that no man shall be a Judge in his
own cause and that no man should be condemned unheard. This fetter doctrine is
known as audi alteram partem. It is on this principle that natural justice ensures
that both sides should be heard fairly and reasonably. A part of this principle is
that if any reliance is record must be placed on evidence or record against a
person then that evidence or record must be placed before him for his
information, comment and criticism. That is all that is meant by the doctrine of,
audi alteram partem That no party should be condemned unheard. No natural
justice requires that there should be a kind of a formal cross-examination. Formal
cross-examination is I cross-examination is procedural justice. It is governed by
rules of evidence, It is the creation of Courts and not a part of natural justice but
of legal and statutory justice. Natural justice certainly includes that any statement
of a person before it is accepted against somebody else, that somebody else
should have an opportunity of meeting it wheather it (sic), by way of interrogation
or by way of comment does not matter. So long as the party charged has a fair
and reasonable opportunity to see, comment and criticise the evidence,
35
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

statement, or record on which the charge is being made against him, the
demands and the test of natural justice are satisfied. Cross-examination in that
sense is not the technical cross-examination in a Court of law in the witness box."

91. In the case of Satellite Engg. Ltd. (supra). The jurisdictional High Court has
held that:

"It is true that the Department must disclose every information to the petitioner in which
the Department intend to rely in the departmental proceedings. If the copies of the letters
containing the price offered were handed over to the petitioner with a slip pasted on the
name of the intended importer. From this material, it was for the petitioners to establish
that the value quoted in these quotations was not the proper value and in case the
Department is compelled to give the name or to produce such intending importers for
cross-examination in departmental proceedings, it will well-nigh be impossible together
any material in future. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was violation of natural
justice specially when the name of the exporter sending the quotations was disclosed to
the petitioner."

92. In the case of Kanungo & Co. (supra). It was held:

The complaint of the appellant now is that all the persons from whom enquiries were
alleged to have been made by the authorities should have been produced to enable it to
cross-examine them."

In our opinion, the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like
this the persons who have been given information should be examined in the
presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on
the statement made before the Custom Authorities. Accordingly, we hold that
there is no force in the third contention of the appellant.

There is no force in the second point because we do not read the impugned order
as having wrongly placed the burden on the appellant. What the impugned order
does is that it refers to the evidence on the record which militates against the
version of the appellant and then states that the appellant had not been able to
meet the inferences arising therefrom. In our opinion, the High Court was right in
holding that the burden of proof had shifted on to the appellant after the Custom
Authorities had informed appellant of the results of the enquiries and
investigations.

93. In the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra). The Apex Court has held that:
36
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

"So far as the 'audi alteram partm' rule is concerned, both in England and in India,
it is well-established that where a right to a prior notice and an opportunity to be
heard before an order is passed would obstruct the taking of prompt action, such
a right can be excluded This right can also be excluded where the nature of the
action to be taken, its obiect and purpose and the scheme of the relevant
statutory provisions warrant its exclusion: nor can the audi alteram partem rule be
invoked if importing it would have the effect of paralysing the administrative
process or where the need for promptitude or the urgency of taking action so
demands."

94.DCW Ltd.'s case (supra), para 11 of the said decision (p. 237) is reproduced
here as under

"The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the applicability of the principles of
natural justice in a recent case in R.S. Dass v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 593. The
Supreme Court in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965
held as follows:

'Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure all. If fairness
is shown by the decision maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the
fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditional by the facts and
circumstances of such situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of.
Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities
and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor
financial but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction......"

95. Sri Desai submitted that the rules of natural justice are not rigid rules, they are
flexible and their application depends upon the setting and background of
statutory provision, nature of the right which may be effected and the
consequences which may entail its application depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. It was stressed that natural justice is mistress and
not the master of justice. It is used to support the cause of justice. It can never be
used to defeat the cause of justice.

Sri Dastur pointed out that the Apex Court in K.T. Shaduli Grocery Dealer's case
(supra) made it clear that cross-examination, if asked for, must be granted. In the
case of Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College AIR 1973 SC
1260, the Supreme Court came across with an unusual situation which
demanded a highly particular approach The Court was concerned with the
complaints regarding molestation of girl students. In exceptional cases the
requirement may be waived. The case of the assessee does not fall in the
37
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

category of exceptional cases In the light of cases discussed hereinbefore, it was
pleaded that great injustices given to the assessee.

We have perused the decisions cited before us. The judicial climate on this point
is thickly clouded with plethora of precedents. This point has created chaos in
judicial cosmos. The result is that, as was observed in the case of Kishanlal
Agarwalla (supra), "the danger of confusion has become real and natural justice
is on the misleading road of sentimental potentiates."

We recollect the famous saying of Justice Bernard Botein:

"The law will never be entirely clear to any judge, just as a beautiful woman is always a
bit of mystery to her lover. Were it otherwise each would lose part of her charm. But the
wise judge, like the wise lover, will be the master of his true love, although he may not
understand her completely and though she is sometimes too difficult for him. Trial Judge
(at page 27)

96. The appellant's basic contention is that the statement of witnesses and
materials which are relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order
to reach the conclusions and findings which are adverse to the assessee should
be disclosed to the appellant and the witnesses should be offered for cross-
examination. Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. (supra) laid
down:

"the assessee ordinarily has the fullest right to inspect the records and all documents and
materials that are to be used against him. Under the provisions of section 37 of the
Indian Income-tax Act the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial
proceedings and all the incidents of such judicial proceedings have to be observed
before the result is arrived at In other words, the assessee would have a right to inspect
the record and all relevant documents before he is called upon to lead evidence in
rebuttal."

97. In the case of K.T. Shaduli Grocery Dealer (supra), it was held (at p. 1631):

".........the usual mode recognized by law for proving fact is by production of evidence
and evidence includes oral evidence of witnesses. The opportunity to prove the
correctness of completeness of the return would, therefore, necessarily carry with it the
right to examine witnesses and that would include equally the right to cross-examine
witnesses examined by the Sales-tax Officer. Here in the present case the return filed by
the assessee appeared to the STO to be incorrect and incomplete because certain sales
appearing in the books of Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale dealers were not shown
in the books of account of the assessee. The STO relied on the evidence furnished by
38
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

the entries in the books of account of Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale dealers for
the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the return filed by the assessee was
incorrect or incomplete. Placed in these circumstances, the assessee could prove the
correctness and completeness of his return only by showing that the entries in the books
of account of Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale dealers were false, bogus or
manipulated and that the retum submitted by the assessee should not be disbelieved on
the basis of such entries, and this obviously, the assessee could not do, unless he was
given an opportunity of cross-examining Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale dealers
with reference to their accounts. Since the evidentiary material procured from or
produced by Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale dealers was sought to be relied upon
for showing that the return submitted by the assessee was incorrect and incomplete the
assessee was entitled to an opportunity to have Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale
dealers summoned as witnesses for cross-examination. It can hardly be disputed that
cross-examination is one of the most efficacious methods of establishing truth and
exposing falsehood. Here, it was not disputed on behalf of the revenue that the assessee
in both cases applied to the STO for summoning Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale
dealers for cross-examination but his application was turned down by the STO. This act
of the STO in refusing to summon Hazi Usmankutty and other wholesale dealers for
cross-examination by the assessee clearly constituted infraction of the right conferred on
the assessee by the second part of the proviso and that vitiated the orders of
assessment made against the assessee."
98. It is pertinent to note that in the case of M.K. Thomas (supra), it was held that
the decision in K.T. Shaduli Grocery Dealer's case (supra). cannot be understood
as recognising a right of cross-examination as an invariable attribute of the
requirements of reasonable opportunity. The Apex Court has stated the rule with
sufficient elasticity and amplitude as to make the right depend on the terms of the
statute, the nature of the proceedings or of the function exercised, the conduct of
the party and the circumstances of the case.

99. "Whether in a particular case the particular party should have the right to
cross-examine or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular
case. This is so, because the right to cross-examine is not necessarily a part of
reasonable opportunity." This view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in the
case of Manindra Nath Chatterjee (supra). Thus in a given case the rule of audi
alteram partem may impost a requirement that witnesses whose statements are
sought to be relied upon by the authority holding the enquiry should be permitted
to be cross-examined by the party affected while in some other case it may not.

100. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram d Chellaram (supra), th (supra), the
Apex Court was concerned with the evidence which was to be used against the
assessee. This was in the form of letter from the Manger of a Bank through which
money was remitted. This letter was not shown to the assessee. Therefore,
39
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

evidence was held not to be admissible. It was held that opportunity to controvert
should be given to the assessee.

101. In the case of Dr. Rash Lal Yadav (supra), it was held:

"The concept of natural justice is not a static one but is an ever expanding concept. In the
initial stages it was thought that it had only two elements, namely, (1) no one shall be a
judge in his own cause, and (ii) no one shall be condemned unheard. With the passage
of time a third element was introduced, namely of procedural reasonableness because
the main objective of the requirement of rule of natural justice is to promote justice and
prevent its miscarriage."

102. In the case of Mahendra Electricals Ltd. (supra), it was held that:

"The opportunity to cross-examine the witness who has made adverse report should not
be denied, to the opposite party."

103. The concept and contents of natural justice go on changing. Natural justice
is a living organism, advanced from time to time. Courts are giving new
dimensions to the principles of natural justice. The principles embodied reflect the
value of the society accepted for time being. The change is a fact of life. Every
living thing takes new shape, new dimension with the flux of time. Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed in 44 STC 61 (sic):

"It must be remembered that law is not a mausoleum. It is not an antique to be taken
down, dusted, admired and put back on the shelf. It is rather like and old but vigorous
tree, having its roots in history yet continuously taking new grafts and putting out new
sprout and occasionally dropping dead words. It is essentially a social process, the end
product of which is justice and hence, it must keep on growing and developing with
changing social concepts and values. Otherwise, there will be estrangement between law
and justice and law will cease to have legitimacy."

104. No riddle is more difficult to solve, none has more persistently engaged the
attention of thoughtful mind', says Allen, than the problem of the natural sense of
justice. We have carefully considered the profile of the subject in the light of the
latest developments. Principles of justice prohibit, determination without hearing.
[Terminer sans over] Similarly, hearing without determination [Over sans
Terminer] is also interdicted by the finer norms of justice. That all is required is
impartial and fair hearing, and determination of disputes with utmost promptitude.
The question whether or not any rules of natural justice had been contravened,
should be decided not under any preconceived notions but in the light of the
statutory rules and provisions. The violation or otherwise of any rule of natural
40
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

justice must be a matter of substance not of mere form. It is important to keep in
mind the caveat issued by the Apex Court AIR 1977 SC 965 that unnatural
expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and
other factors of a given case, can be exasperating.

105.In our opinion right to cross-examine the witness who made adverse report,
is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum, 'audi alteram
partem'. The principles of natural justice do not require formal cross-examination.
Formal cross-examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed by the
rules of evidence, and is the creation of Court. It is part of legal and statutory
justice, and not a part of natural justice, therefore, it cannot be laid down as a
general proposition of law that the revenue cannot rely on any evidence which
has not been subjected to cross-examination.

However, if a witness has given directly incriminating statement and the addition
in the assessment is based solely or mainly on the basis of such statement, in
that eventuality it is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to allow cross-
examination.

Adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order, to reach the finality,
should be disclosed to the assessee. But this rule is not applicable where the
material or evidence used is of Collateral Nature."

(emphasis supplied)

In the light of above decision it can be concluded that adverse evidence and
material, relied upon in the order, to reach the finality, should be disclosed to the
assessee. However the issue of cross examination is different. In this regard it is
incumbent upon the assessee to have raised the issue and demanded cross
examination during the assessment proceedings. Also where the statement
material or evidence used is of collateral nature, providing the cross examination
is not necessary.

It is held by the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Vijay Jain v.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ujjain [2019] 107 taxmann.com 313
(Madhya Pradesh)/[2019] 265 Taxman 81 (Madhya Pradesh) (MAG) [22-03-2018]
as under-

Headnotes
41
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained investment (Immovable
property) - Assessment year 2006-07- Whether wherefrom statement of one SKL
it was evident that assessee engaged in construction business had entered into
an agreement with original owner of land and paid Rs.20 lakhs towards advance
(bayana) for purchase of said land, Tribunal rightly upheld addition of Rs.20 lakhs
as unexplained investment under section 69 Held, yes - Whether, findings
recorded by authorities being findings of fact based on agreement of purchase of
land, it could not be said that authorities committed an error by relying upon
statements of SKL Held, yes [Paras 9 and 10][In favour of revenue]

The principles of natural justice cannot be used to the advantage of person who
wants to defeat the very purpose of justice.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Board of Mining
Examination vs. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965 has held that

"Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities
and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. And it is held in the case of
Kishanial Agarwal vs. Collector of Customs. AIR 1967 Cal 80 that "So long as the party
charged has a fair and reasonable opportunity to see, comment and criticise the
evidence, statement, or record on which the charge is being made against him, the
demands and the test of natural justice are satisfied. Cross-examination in that sense is
not the technical cross examination in a Court of law in the witness box."

It is abundantly clear from the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme
Court as noted above, that a technical plea of breach of principles of natural
justice cannot be taken, unless a case of prejudice has been made out and if no
case of prejudice is made out, certainly a plea of breach of principles of natural
justice would be a hollow plea or a plea in futility. This for the reason that a
person complaining of breach of principles of natural justice needs to show that
curing such breach, would culminate the proceedings with a different
consequence favourable to the assessee. It is only after considering such pleas, it
would be a fair decision, rendering justice to the complainant, as observed in para
62 in case of Veena Estates (supra).
42
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

It is principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natwar Singh
v. Director of Enforcement [2010] 13 SCC 255, wherein the Supreme Court has
observed that there can never be a technical plea of breach of principles of
natural justice and plea would be a realistic plea which can be proved on the
principle of prejudice.

It is a settled principle of law that any breach of the principles of natural justice
cannot be addressed by a straight jacket formula. Any complaint of breach of
principles of natural justice would be required to be considered in the facts of the
case. When the facts of the case would demonstrate it, to be an undisputed
position, that no real prejudice was caused to a party aggrieved by an order,
being alleged to be breach of the principles of natural justice, the Court would
certainly not interfere. Such complaint and/or a genuine grievance of the breach
of principles of natural justice accompanied with the prejudice it would cause, is
required to be made with utmost promptness. Any delay in making such
complaint or raising a grievance would give rise to a position that such grievance
is either not genuine or is belated and/or a technical plea being agitated. In
Natwar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing on the test of
real prejudice, observed that there is no such thing as "technical infringement of
natural justice", as what is necessarily to be seen is that there must have been
caused some real prejudice to the complainant. It was observed that the
requirements of natural justice must depend inter alia as involved in the facts and
circumstances of the case and the nature of the inquiry, etc. (para 41 in case of
Veena Estates (supra)) The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
are required to be noted which read thus:

"26. Even in the application of the doctrine of fair play there must be real flexibility. There
must also have been caused some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such
thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural
justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the Inquiry, the rules
under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so forth. Can
the Courts supplement the statutory procedures with requirements over and above those
specified? In order to ensure a fair hearing, Courts can insist and require additional steps
as long a such steps would not frustrate the apparent purpose of the legislation.

By nature, the undisclosed transaction of mentioned in the registered sale deed. If
it is mentioned in the registered sale deed then it does not remain unaccounted
and undisclosed. Similarly the similar arguments like bank statement showing the
cheque payment from the buyer is of no help as the issue at hand is regarding the
unaccounted and undisclosed cash transaction.
43
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v.
Commissioner of Income-tax [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC)/(1995] 214 ITR 801
(SC)/[1995] 125 CTR 124 (SC)[28-03-1995] as under:-

13. This, in our opinion, is a superficial approach to the problem. The matter has to be
considered in the light of human probabilities. The Chairman of the Settlement
Commission has emphasised that the appellant did possess the winning ticket which was
surrendered to the Race Club and in return a crossed cheque was obtained. It is, in our
view, a neutral circumstance, because if the appellant had purchased and the the
winning ticket after the event she would be having the winning ticket with her which she
could surrender to the Race Club. The observation by the Chairman of the Settlement
Commission that "fraudulent sale of winning ticket is not an usual practice but is very
much of an unusual practice" ignores the prevalent malpractice that was noticed by the
District Taxes Enquiry Committee recommendations made by the said Committee which
led to the amendment of the Act by the Finance Act of 1972 whereby the exemption from
tax that was available in respect of winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races, etc.
was withdrawn. Similarly the observation by the Chairman that if it is alleged that these
tickets were obtained through fraudulent means, it is upon the alleger to prove that it is
so, ignores the reality. The transaction about purchase of winning ticket takes place in
secret and direct evidence about such purchase would be rarely available. An inference
about such a purchase has to be drawn on the basis of the circumstances available on
the record. Having regard to the conduct of the appellant as disclosed in her sworn
statement as well as other material on the record an inference could reasonably be
drawn that the winning tickets were purchased by the appellant after the event. We are,
therefore, unable to agree with the view of the Chairman in his dissenting opinion In our
opinion, the majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying
the test of human probabilities has rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the
amount being her winning from races is not genuine. It cannot be said that the
explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts has been rejected
unreasonably and that the finding that the said amounts are income of the appellant from
other sources is not based on evidence.

The findings and ratio of the above judgement as relevant for the case at hand
are as under.-

(a) Receipt of credit through cheque and recording the transaction in books of
accounts is not the conclusive proof regarding its genuineness.

(b) The known/usual "practice" used to avoid the tax is a relevant factor while
examining the genuineness. Similarly, the allegation or finding in an order that
source of cash in books of accounts is fraudulent practice/means the onus is
solely not on the assessing authority that the fraudulent practice has been
employed but is to be seen in terms of the reality and known practices.
44
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

It is very known practice in several real-estate transactions, significant part of the
total consideration is being paid in cash in an unaccounted manner. In view of the
evidences on record and in view of the known or the usual practice, the onus is
on the appellant to prove with sterling evidences that the evidences on record are
false or incorrect and at the same time the known or the usual practice has not
been followed by the appellant. However the appellant has squarely failed to
discharge his onus.

The transaction is between two parties where the appellant is the seller and the
parties which maintained the data of unaccounted cash payment is the buyer. If
the buyer has paid the unaccounted cash payment to seller that means the seller
received the unaccounted / undisclosed cash. When the seller has received it that
means the buyer has paid it. This is the position until or unless the same is
rebutted with strong evidences by the seller appellant.

Statement of the buyer and or the representative of the buyer is reliable evidence.
In this regard reference is made to the judgement of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in
the case of Vijay Jain v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ujjain [2019] 107
taxmann.com 313 (Madhya Pradesh)/[2019] 265 Taxman 81 (Madhya Pradesh)
(MAG)[22-03-2018] wherein it has been held as under

Headnotes

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained investment (Immovable property) -
Assessment year 2006-07 Whether wherefrom statement of one SKL it was evident that
assessee engaged in construction business had entered into an agreement with original
owner of land and paid Rs.20 lakhs towards advance (bayana) for purchase of said land,
Tribunal rightly upheld addition of Rs.20 lakhs as unexplained investment under section
69 Held, yes Whether, findings recorded by authorities being findings of fact based on
agreement of purchase of land, it could not be said that authorities committed an error by
relying upon statements of SKL Held, yes [Paras 9 and 10][In favour of revenue)

In the present case the addition has not been made solely on the basis of the
statement but the statement is corroborative as the details of the unaccounted
cash payments are clearly mentioned in the seized material. It is not verifiable
whether the request of cross examination was made during the assessment
proceedings are not and if any such request was made then whether it was made
timely or not as that is an indicator of the bona fide of the request. The present
appeal proceedings also the appellant has not made any request for directions to
the assessing authority to request for the cross examination. Also the onus is on
45
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transaction including the
transaction value. If the evidences found from the search suggest or show that
the appellant received the unaccounted cash payment in that case the onus is on
the appellant to have produced the buyers for the cross examination by the
assessing authority. Once the preliminary evidence is confronted to the appellant,
the onus regarding such evidences shifts from the assessing authority to the
appellant i.e. the appellant is required to disprove such evidences with the help of
positive evidences. The finding of the assessment order also gets supported from
the principle of known or usual practice in the real estate market and thus the
judgement of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal is
applicable. The buyers are the evidences of the appellant as it is the appellant
who has entered into transaction with the buyers and the appellant is required to
produce them to support its case of the genuineness.

It is a settled law that unaccounted transactions take place in secrecy and direct
evidence about secret transaction would be rarely available and the inference had
to be drawn on the basis of circumstances available on the record and that the
genuineness of claim had to be considered in view of the surrounding
circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities. [Sumati Dayal v. CIT
[1995] 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC)]

A party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those
recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in
documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. If all
that an assessee who wants to evade tax is to have some recitals made in a
document either executed by him or executed in his favour then the door will be
left wide open to evade tax. [Refer judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v.
Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540]

It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in Sushil Kumar Mohnani vs. Income-tax Officer,
Ward, Katni (M.P.) [2011] 9 taxmann.com 314 (Jabalpur) (TM) [01-06-2010] as
under:-

....... It is observed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SumatiDayal (supra) has
held as under:

in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the
Department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of
income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within an exemption
provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. But, in view of section 68 of the Act, where
any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same
46
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the
explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is. in the
opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such a case there is, prima facie,
evidence against the assessee, viz the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut it, the
said evidence being unrebutted, can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt
of an income nature.

It is clear from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SumatiDayal (supra) that direct evidence about secret transaction would be rarely
available and the inference had to be drawn on the basis of circumstances
available on the record and that the genuineness of claim had to be considered in
view of the surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human
probabilities."

It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in Income-tax Officer vs. Solid Machinery Co. (P.)
Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 293 (Mumbai - Trib.) [19-10-2022] as under-

7. It is also important that when we examine the genuineness of the transactions
entered into by the assessee, we must also bear in mind Hon'ble Supreme
Court's observation, in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540,
to the effect that "Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the
reliability of the evidence placed before a court or tribunal. Therefore, the courts
and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of
human probabilities". Similarly, in a later decision in the case of SumatiDayal v.
CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the
theory that it is for alleger to prove that the apparent and not real, and observed
that, "This, in our opinion, is a superficial approach to the problem. The matter
has to be considered in the light of human probabilities.... Similarly the
observation.... that if it is alleged that these tickets were obtained through
fraudulent means, it is upon the alleger to prove that it is so, ignores the reality.
The transaction about purchase of winning ticket takes place in secret and direct
evidence about such purchase would be rarely available In our opinion, the
majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying the
test of human probabilities has rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about
the amount being her winning from races is not genuine. It cannot be said that the
explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts has been
rejected unreasonably". We will be superficial in our approach in case we
examine the claim of the assessee solely on the basis of documents filed by the
assessee and overlook clear the unusual pattern in the documents filed by the
assessee and pretend to be oblivious of the ground realities. As Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed, in the case of Durga Prasad More (supra ........... "it is true
47
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

that an apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons
to believe that the apparent is not the real party who relies on a recital in a deed
has to establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make
self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely
on those recitals. If all that an assessee who wants to evade tax is to have some
recitals made in a document either executed by him or executed in his favour
then the door will be left wide open to evade tax. A little probing was sufficient in
the present case to show that the apparent was not the real. The taxing
authorities were not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents
produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding
circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents". As
a final fact finding authority, this Tribunal cannot be superficial in its assessment
of the genuineness of a transaction, and this call is to be taken not only in the
light of the face value of the documents sighted before the Tribunal but also in the
light of all the surrounding circumstances, the preponderance of human
probabilities and ground realities. There may be a difference in subjective
perception on such issues, on the same set of facts, but that cannot be a reason
enough for the fact-finding authorities to avoid taking subjective calls on these
aspects, and remain confined to the findings on the basis of irrefutable evidence.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Durga Prasad More (supra), observed
that "human minds may differ as to the reliability of a piece of evidence but in that
sphere the decision of the final fact finding authority is made conclusive by law".
This faith in the Tribunal by Hon'ble Courts above makes the job of the Tribunal
even more onerous and demanding and, in our considered view, it does require
the Tribunal to take a holistic view of the matter, in the light of surrounding
circumstances, the preponderance of probabilities and ground realities, rather
than being swayed by the not so convincing, but apparently in order, documents
and examining them, in a pedantic manner, with the blinkers on.

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Md. Warasat Hussain [1987] 35
Taxman 227 (Patna)/[1988] 171 ITR 405 (Patna)/[1988] 67 CTR 75 (Patna) [10-
09-1987] it was held by Hon'ble Patna High Court as under-

"This was a matter with the special knowledge of the assessee. The Tribunal could not
be expected to produce the sale deed. The leamed counsel for the assessee submitted
that even if the assessee did not produce the original sale deed, the revenue could have
obtained certified copy of the sale deed from the registration office and disproved the
stand of the assessee that the land had been sold really for a sum higher than Rs.
49,500. This does not lie in the mouth of the assessee. No Court or the Tribunal should
countenance an assessee the attitude of failure to produce relevant material and ask the
48
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

adversary to disprove it. This attitude was decried by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in McDowell
& Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC).

It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM)/[2000] 69
TTJ 135 (Pune) (TM) [27-01-2000] as under-

134. Having held that the seized record is not the complete record of unaccounted
transactions, the question which arises is whether these facts justify the estimation of
undisclosed income. It is well settled law that what is apparent is the real state of affairs
and the onus to prove that apparent was not real is on the party who claims it to be so.
Reference can be made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram
Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349. In the present case, the dispute is about the sale
consideration of the plots sold by the assessee in the block period. What is apparent
state of affair is the consideration of sale shown in the sale agreements/deeds and
recorded by the assessee in his regular books of account. Therefore, the burden lies on
the department to prove that it is false or unaccounted. In the present case, there are
enough materials in the form of seized record to prove that sale consideration shown by
the assessee in his regular books of account and the sale agreements/deeds were false
and incorrect. The assessee himself has also admitted this fact by offering the amount of
undisclosed income in his return under section 158BC. Therefore, in my opinion, the
onus which lies on the Revenue has been discharged. Since the sale consideration
recorded in the sale deeds/agreements and in the regular books of account have been
proved to be false, in my opinion, the Assessing Officer justified in making the estimate
under section 143(3)/145 in accordance with the guidelines given by the Apex Court in
the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Raghubar Mandal
Harihar Mandal (supra) as discussed by us in earlier part of the order. This view is also
fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali
(supra). It has been contended on behalf of the assessee that case law relied upon by
the Id. senior D.R. where the estimate was justified related to cases where articles sold
were standard articles while in the present case, it is the land which has been sold which
is not of the standard quality in respect of each plot and those cases, therefore, are
distinguishable. In my opinion, such aspect of the argument cannot be accepted. Once a
fact has been proved to be in existence, the presumption to the existence of such fact
can be raised backward and forward as held by the President as 3rd Member in the case
of Overseas Chinese Cuisine (supra). It has been held thereon that if a particular habit or
bad habit of manipulating the sale bills was found to be existing, then the same state of
things could be presumed in respect of other transactions. Even according to the test of
human probabilities, as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SumatiDayal (supra), no man of prudence would sell similar items at similar place having
great disparity. No doubt, there may be certain variations on account of mitigating
circumstances, which have to be proved by the assessee. Perusal of the record shows
that there is a great disparity in the prices of plots in respect of transactions where seized
49
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

material is available and for transactions where no record is available even though such
transactions are made within the short period/interval. This can be proved by some
examples.

In Survey No. 46, the assessee had sold 5 plots in assessment year 1989-90 at the rate
of Rs. 5 per sq.ft. as per sale agreement/deed. While as per the seized record, it has
been found that assessee had charged excess amounts in respect of 4 plots. It has also
been found that excess money is considerably very high as compared to the price shown
in the documents. For instance, the excess money for plot Nos. 7, 8 and 51 were Rs.
12,555 Rs. 15,348 and Rs. 18,533 respectively as against agreed price of Rs. 8,910, Rs.
9,405 and Rs. 8,745 respectively. Similarly, in Survey No. 18 assessee had sold half of
the plot No. 71 to Shri Prakash Nigam and other half of the plot to Shri Ramesh Patil on
the same date of 17th February, 1992 at apparent consideration of Rs. 1,125 each.
However, as per seized record it is found that he had charged excess money of Rs.
6,375 (more than 5 times) from Shri Prakash Nigam. It is impossible to believe that
assessee would not have charged excess money for other half of the plot No. 71 which
was similarly situated and sold on the same date. According to the test of human
probabilities, the assessee must have charged excess money in respect of the other
plots. If there was any mitigating circumstances, it was for the assessee to prove. But, as
far as the question of estimation is concerned, there is enough material on the record to
justify the same."

(emphasis supplied)

It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
v. Pawan Kumar Malhotra [2010] 2 ITR(T) 250 (Delhi) [08-01-2010] as under-

*12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We
feel it imperative to deal with the issues about suspicious circumstances and their
effects. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal [1995] 214 ITR
801 has held that the genuineness of the transactions is to be considered on the
basis of surrounding circumstances, human probabilities and conduct of the
connected parties. A transaction does not become genuine merely because a
paper trail has been created. The Assessing Officer while exercising his powers
as an investigating officer has a right to go beyond what is apparent. It shall be
worthwhile to reproduce the observations of the hon'ble Supreme Court in this
case (page 808):
...............

13. In view of these surrounding circumstances, human probabilities and decide the
issue on the basis of totality of facts, circumstances and record. The assessee filed his
return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 in which no details about cash
50
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

purchases of shares were furnished by him. The purchase of shares is from two ordinary
persons, one of whom did not appear and one Shri Raja Ram though appeared but could
not give satisfactory reply. In both these cases, they also did not file any particulars about
the purchase and sale of shares in their returns. Pertinently all these transactions are in
cash and Shri Raja Ram could not even relate back the details of transactions, transfer of
shares in his name, etc. Shares purchased at a cost of Rs. 2.42 has been sold in a range
of Rs. 144 to Rs. 177 within a year, nobody knows the potential and credentials of QSIL.
A logical question arises why the share price of a company whose potential, credential,
activities are neither known nor reported will increase about more than 70 times in one
year. These shares are neither quoted nor listed at the time of purchase by the assessee
consideration changed hands without furnishing details about the distinctive numbers of
transfer of shares, etc. Under these circumstances, QSIL shares attaining a very high
market value itself becomes mysterious, which is thickened by the fact that there is no
corroborative factor for increase in valuation. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sumati Dayal [1995] 214 ITR 801 signifies that what is apparent must be examined on
the touchstone of surrounding circumstances and human probabilities. Merely because a
paper trail is created will not by itself make the transaction genuine In this case,
companies to whom QSIL shares were sold could not be traced ultimately. Learned
counsel contends that their bank accounts suggest that the entities existed, in our view,
the opening of a bank account by itself does not prove functional and factual existence of
entities. The saga of paper or briefcase companies is well known to the corporate circles.
The Assessing Officer as an investigating officer has an obligation to enquire into all the
relevant aspects of the matter before him. Despite diligent enquiries by the Assessing
Officer, the purchaser of these shares could not be traced, and sale price is exorbitant
and logically absurd mere payment of securities transaction tax will also not make the
transaction genuine Inasmuch as it is a voluntary payment by the broker. In view of the
facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals)'s finding that the Assessing Officer has acted on the basis of surmises and
conjectures. In our view, the Assessing Officer has carried out meticulous enquiries, non-
availability of relevant supporting material clearly questions the veracity of purchase and
sale transaction of shares by the assessee. The same is further strengthened by the fact
that the assessee in his return for the assessment year 2004-05 did not report the cash
purchases of shares. On the sale front also except cheque payments, nothing worthwhile
is forthcoming. The strength of shares of QSIL, its trading activities still remain
mysterious and exorbitant share price is unbelievable on the facts, merely on the broker's
note, it cannot be held that the transaction was infallible......."

(emphasis supplied)

In view of the discussion the contention of the appellant regarding the crose
examination is hereby rejected.

PLEA OF APPELLANT FOR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER-
51
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

The appellant has requested to cancel the assessment order on the ground that
statement of the was not provided and that the cross examination was not
provided. These contentions of the appellant have been dealt in detail in the
earlier paragraphs and these contentions have been rejected. Without prejudice
to the same, even otherwise i.e. in case the contention of the appellant regarding
statement and or cross examination would have been accepted even then the
assessment order is not liable for cancellation and at best the matter could be set
aside to the file of the assessing authority to provide the statement and/or cross
examination to the appellant and passed the assessment order thereafter.

Further, reference is made to the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Canara Bank and Others v. Debasis Das and Others reported in (2003) 4
SCC 557 where Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

*21. How then have the principles of natural justice been interpreted in the courts and
within what limits are they to be confined? Over the years by a process of judicial
interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural
justice in judicial process, including therein quasi judicial and administrative process.
They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the innate
sense of man for fair play and justice, which is not the preserve of any particular race or
country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is "nemo judex in causa site of
nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua os stated in Earl of Derby's caso ((1605) 12
Co Rep 114 77 ER 1390) thớt is, "no man shall be a judge in his own cattse Coke used
the form aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa, quia non potest esse judex el
pars (Ca Lid 1418) that is no man ought to be a judge in his own caso, because he
cannol act as judge and at the same time be a party". The form "nemo potest esse simul
actor et judex, that is, "no one can be at once suitor and judge is also at times used. The
second rule is "audi alteram partem, that is, "hear the other side". At times and
particularly in continental countries, the form "audietur et altera pars" is used, meaning
very much the same thing. A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and
particularly the audi alteram partem rule, namely "qui aliquid statuerit, parte inaudita
altera acquum licet dixerit, haud acquum fecerit" that is, "he who shall decide anything
without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will
not have been what is right (see Boswel's case [(1605) 6 Co Rep 48b 77 ER 326] (Co
Rep at p. 52-a)] or in other words, as it is now expressed, "justice should not only be
done but should manifestly be seen to be done. Whenever an order is struck down as
invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the
case and fresh proceedings are left upon (sic open). All that is done is to vacate the
order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but the proceedings are not terminated.
52
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v.
Commissioner of Income-tax [1981] 7 Taxman 6 (SC)/[1981] 131 (SC)/[1981] 24
CTR 345 (SC) as under:-
13 .............It is, however, difficult to agree with the submission made on behalf of the
assessee that the duty of the Tribunal ends with making a declaration that the
assessments are illegal and it has no duty to issue any further direction. It is well known
that an appellate authority has the jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct all errors in
the proceedings under appeals and to issue, if necessary, appropriate directions to the
authority against whose decision the appeal is preferred to dispose of the whole or any
part of the matter afresh unless forbidden from doing so by the statute The Tribunal,
therefore, erred in merely cancelling the assessment orders and in not issuing further
directions as stated above"

Further, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagwat Prasad v.
Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 97 TAXMAN 294 (ALL) has held as under.-

23.............. If an order passed by a statutory authority is struck down as invalid
for non-compliance of statutory provisions or in not giving effect to the maxim audi
alteram partem, the proceedings do not come to an end. All that is done is that
the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defects is vacated but the proceedings
are not terminated They will stand restored to the stage before the order was
passed. This position is well-settled in law

24. In Vishwanath Prasad Bhagwati Prasad v. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 469 (All), the
assessment was completed without taking recourse to section 1448 when
admittedly that section was attracted on the facts of that case. Two questions
were raised for consideration of this Court Firstly, whether non-compliance of
section 1448 was only a procedural lapse and secondly, whether the Tribunel
was justified in upholding the order of the Tabunal in restoring the assessment to
the ITO with directions to consider the matter afresh from the stage where the
irregularity intervened. Both the questions were answered in the affirmative. It
was pointed out that section 1448 merely sets out specific procedure to be
followed in the cases where the ITO proposed to make any variation in the
income or loss shown by the assessee, which is more than Rs. one lakh It does
not confer jurisdiction on the assessing authority to make assessment and,
therefore, non-compliance of it cannot render the assessment void and liable to
be annulled. The Court held as under

Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, fails in Chapter XIV which bears the
caption 'Procedure for assessment. It is, therefore, manifest that sections 139 to
158 falling in Chapter XIV relate to procedure for making assessment. Section
53
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

1448 is, therefore, procedural in nature, non-compliance with which cannot render
an assessment a nullity Section 1448 was enacted with a view to ensuring that
the assessment made by the assessing authority is not arbitrary, whimisical,
capricious or unreasonable. It does not confer jurisdiction on the assessing
authority to make the assessment and, therefore, non-compliance with it cannot
render the assessment void."

25. In the ultimate analysis, it was held that the order of the appellate authority in
setting aside the assessment for fresh assessment was valid in law

26. The ratio decidendi of the aforesaid case applies with all force to the facts of
the instant case. There are several other pronouncements of different High
Courts in which a similar view has also been taken and some of them have been
referred in the case of Vishwanath Prasad Bhagwati Prasad (supra) but it is not
necessary to refer them again in this judgment.
.............

28. In Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451/7 Taxman 6, the Supreme
Court has held as under-
"..........It is, however, difficult to agree with the submission made on behalf of the
assessee that the duty of the Tribunal ends with making a declaration that the
assessments are illegal and it has no duty to issue any further direction. It is well-
known that an appellate authority has the junsdiction as well as the duty to correct
all errors in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if necessary, appropriate
directions to the authority against whose decision the appeal is preferred to
dispose of the whole or any part of the matter afresh unless forbidden from doing
so by the statute (p. 460)

In view of the ratio of the above judgements, whenever an order is struck down as
invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of
the case and fresh proceedings are left open. All that is done is to vacate the
order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but the proceedings are not
terminated. (Canara Bank and Others (supra)). Further, an appellate authority
has the jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct all errors in the proceedings
under appeals and to issue, if necessary, appropriate directions to the authority
against whose decision the appeal is preferred to dispose of the whole or any part
of the matter afresh unless forbidden from doing so by the statute. (Kapurchand
Shrimal (supra)). The act of providing the copy of statement or cross examination
to the appellant is a procedural act and any defect in the same does not render
the whole proceedings as null and void. It was upheld in Vishwanath Prasad
54
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Bhagwati Prasad v. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 469 (All.), Tribunal in restoring the
assessment to the ITO with directions to consider the matter afresh from the
stage where the irregularity intervened, and was relied upon in Bhagwat Prasad
(supra).

In view of the above detailed discussion this ground of appeal of the appellant is
hereby dismissed.

Ground Nos. 7,8 & 10
10.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the
appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order
for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant
are being discussed and decided as under:-

In the ground no. 7 of appeal the appellant has mainly challenge that the learned
AO has not given detailed explanation for rejecting the reply of the appellant to
the show cause notice during the assessment proceedings. From the perusal of
the assessment order it is seen that detailed show cause notice was given to the
appellant. In reply to the show cause notice the appellant has only given the
denial without any supporting whereas the show cause notice was based on
seized material regarding the transactions carried out by the appellant with the
person from whom the transaction related material was seized. This issue has
been discussed in the details in the earlier paragraphs in this order. Neither in the
appeal nor in the assessment proceedings the appellant had given any positive
evidence and the appellant did not produce the parties for cross examination with
whom the appellant had entered into transactions of large amounts. From the
perusal of the assessment order it is seen that the learned AO has effectively
dealt with the issue in detail and the contention of the appellant is found to be
incorrect. Further without prejudice, powers of the CIT Appeal are considered as
co-terminus with that of the assessing authority and further opportunity has been
provided to the appellant in the present appellate proceedings and no further
grievance remains. Accordingly this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.

In the ground number 8 of the appeal the appellant has contended that Karta of
the assessee HUF had expired on 26.05.2021 and the other members of the HUF
were not aware of any transactions carried out by the Karta and the appellant has
challenged the finding of the assessing authority that this contention is irrelevant.
I agree with the findings of the assessing authority in this regard. If this kind of
plea is allowed in that case it will open floodgates for the tax evasion. The
evidence in the assessment proceedings has been made on the basis of
55
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

incriminating seized material and other evidences and after detailed show cause
notices were issued by the learned assessing officer. Further, even if the then
Karta of the HUF had expired the HUF still continues. Further that the then Karta
did not inform the other members about the transactions is a self-serving
baseless statement and against the principles of probability as he must have
informed and discussed this issue with his family members, including the spouse.
In view of this discussion this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.

The appellant has also contended in ground no. 10 that the learned AO erred in
giving a finding that excel sheet entries are suppressed by placing decimal before
the last two digits. The appellant has not made any submissions in this regard.
Hence this ground is to be treated as not pressed. Even otherwise the issue has
been discussed in detail in the assessment order and the appellant has raised the
issue on the ground of appeal without any cogent arguments and evidences. The
underlying findings of the assessment order have not been disputed in this regard
and only the conclusion drawn has been challenged. In view of this discussion
this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.

Ground No. 9
11.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the
appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order
for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant
are being discussed and decided as under:-

The contention of the appellant that the seized material has been found in the
case of such other person and thus the presumption prest of accuracy does not
apply is against the appellant is not correct and is in contradiction in contravention
of provisions of section 153C of the Act itself. The section 1530 The section 153C
itself is based on the foundation of the fact that the seized material found in the
case of search of other person has information or material therein which has a
bearing on the determination of the total income of the appellant. As has been
discussed in the earlier paragraphs of this order also, the unaccounted or grey
transactions take place in secrecy and if the seized material itself is discarded in
the case of assessment of other person under section 153C of the Act the section
itself loses its purpose and significance. Such kind of interpretation is not allowed
as per the principles of interpretations. The basic intent of the law is that the
presumption will apply against the other person also (in whose case search action
had not taken place) but the presumption can be rebutted by such other person
with the evidences from his own side. The onus in this regard is on such other
person.
56
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Such evidences from the search action cannot be mere discarded by the other
person on the simplistic denial that these were not found from search action on
him and were found in search action on other person as such approach is against
the nature and basic principles of sections 153C of the Act.

In the present case the appellant has not pleaded any positive evidence from its
side and has merely pleaded ignorance and denial. In the presence of
incriminating seized material such baseless denial in substance indicates or
suggests acceptance

Even though in the present case the addition is liable to be sustained in the
assessment order in view of the factual background as discussed in detail in the
earlier paragraphs of this order, the presumption u/s 292C is also applicable in
this case against the appellant. Further the conduct & absence of confirmation
etc. from buyer suggests that the buyer has accepted having made the
unaccounted payment.

In a similar case of assessment u/s 153C of the Act, it has been held by the
Hon'ble ITAT Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. T.G. Chandrakumar [2023]
152 taxmann.com 623 (Cochin - Trib.) [03-04-2023] as under:-

Headnote:-

Section 45, read with section 2(14) and 2(47), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains
- Chargeable as (Land dealings) - Assessment year 2008-09 - A search was conducted
by revenue in group cases of Dr. AM and S Group of medical stores and connected
cases An agreement for sale of land was found and seized from residence of Dr. RA
between AM and LG of one part (as buyers) and assessee, and 4 others of second part
(as sellers) - Sale consideration mentioned in agreement was higher than registered sale
deeds executed subsequently - Assessing Officer initiated an assessment under section
153C and brought to tax income in respect of a portion of land Assessing Officer
assessed capital gains in hands of assessee and protectively in hands of other sellers,
claiming they were benamidars of assessee However, it was found that assessee was
owner of land, executor of its sale, and beneficiary of sale proceeds and other sellers
were puppets controlled by assessee It was also observed that all four sellers were
closely associated with assessee and lacked capacity to purchase land - It was also
found that agreement was valid and its cancellation as well as defect leading thereto,
were completely unevidenced Whether therefore, revenue was justified in considering
assessee as beneficial owner of subject land and assessment of capital gains in
assessee's hands was also justified - Held, yes [Paras 7.1, 8.1 and 9] [In favour of
revenue]
57
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Extract from judgement:-

The Agreement dated 03/1/2007, which also bears the statutory presumption as
to truth u/s. 292C, is found valid. Its cancellation as well as the defect leading
thereto, is completely unevidenced. There is no explanation for the non-receipt of
payment by cheque/s nor as to why it stands sold at either Rs. 1 lac per cent
(9.87 cents) or at Rs. 20,000/- per cent (267 cents), working to an average of Rs.
22852 per cent, ie.. at about 10% or the originally agreed price of Rs. 2.24 lac per
cent, within a period of 8 months. So much for the collective bargaining power,
stated to be the reason for all of them, including the assessee-who admittedly
owns the land that fronts the road, and through which access to the land of other
four could be had, for coming together for the sale of land. Not surprisingly, the
land is sold, in all four cases, on the same date, i.e., 25/8/2007. Contrast this with,
and in any case, it needs to be noted that this land was subsequently sold at Rs.
6.70 lacs per cent, i.e., in February, 2010 (refer assessment order dated
28/03/2016 of Shri K.J. Thomas for AY 2008-09/PB-2, pgs.85-96). Even if
subsequently scaled down to Rs. 4.80 lacs per cent, as Dr. Majeed clarifies (vide
his statement u/s. 132(4) dated 18/12/2013/PB-1, pgs.27-36); the said difference
not concerning us here, the lower figure again represents a 114% increase over
the agreed price of Rs. 2.24 lacs per cent within 3 years of the Agreement dated
03/1/2007, justifying the same.

It has been held in the case of Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -1(2), Ahmedabad [2014] 45
taxmann.com 533 (Ahmedabad - Trib) [2014] 162 TTJ 171 (Ahmedabad -
Trib.)[28-02-2014) as under:-

A This sub Section prescribes how to treat the material delivered on requisition.
This sub section (2) is clarifying the controversy which sometimes arise in a
situation when the seized material is transferred to the AO having jurisdiction over
"other person". This sub section says that where any books of account etc., have
been delivered to the requisitioning officer then the provisions of sub-section 1 of
section 292C shall apply that as if such books of account etc. which has been
taken into custody from the person searched, as the case may be, had been
found in possession or control of "that person" (in whose case material
requisitioned) in the course of a search u/s. 132. Our humble interpretation of this
sub section is that where any seized material is transferred or handed over to the
AO having jurisdiction over such other person then that seized material shall be
treated as if such material was found in possession or control of "such other
person". Hence, a conclusion can be drawn that in spite of anything contained in
58
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

any of the provisions of the Act where the AO is satisfied that the seized material
recovered at the time of search from the possession of the person searched but is
required to be proceeded against "other person", then at the time when the
seized material is handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over "other person"
then it shall be deemed that the said seized material was found in possession or
control of such other person. Then the consequences that if it is found in
possession of such other person then the provisions of Section 132(4A) shall also
be applied ipso facto. Because of this logic we thus turn down the argument of Id.
AR.

In view of this discussion this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.

Grounds of Appeal No. 11 & 12 are as under: 12.

Ground No. 11. That the learned A.O. has erred in drawing adverse inference
against the assessee for receiving cash against sale of properties even though
the purchaser has not proved the source of money paid to the assessee nor any
addition has been made to the income of the purchaser in various years in which
payment has been alleged to be made. The said action is illegal and unjustified.

Ground No. 12. That the learned A:O. has erred in holding that entries in excel
sheet under name of Dr. Shaya are also attributable to the assessee without
establishing any co relation with the assessee. The said action is illegal and
unjustified.

12.1 The appellant/AR did not make submission on the Ground of Appeal No. 11
and 12. The same are treated as not pressed. Even otherwise the contention of
the appellant that the source of the payment made to the appellant has not been
explained by the purchase of the property is not relevant in the present case. The
appellant has also not stated anything with respect to entries in excel sheet under
name of Dr. Shaya and the same stand accepted.

Therefore, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.

13. Ground of Appeal No. 13 is as under:

Ground No. 13: That the learned A.O. has erred in holding that payment for
purchase of lands were made upto F.Y. 2017-18 even though the purchases were
settled upto F.Y. 2016-17. The said finding is illegal and unjustified.
59
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Ground No. 13

13.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the
appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order
for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant
are being discussed and decided as under:-

In this ground of appeal the appellant has contended that since the registry of the
property was already done and as per the seized material that a payment of the
unaccounted cash was being done even after the registry, such practices against
the principles of probability. However this contention of the appellant is mere
suggestive and is not in evidence in itself. But that when looked and examined in
the context of the evidences on record in terms of the seized material and the
search statements, this contention of the appellant is found to be of no use and
help to the appellant. Even otherwise that terms and conditions of any transaction
specially the unaccounted transaction depends largely on the unwritten
understanding and trust of the parties. Further, there is no likelihood or very less
likelihood of finding of material in this regard from the search action of the buyer
as the buyer had already bought the property registered and any paper or
understanding agreement if any in this regard would be available with the
appellant only where no search and seizure action took place. Further it is a
matter of common knowledge and settled law that unaccounted transactions take
place in secrecy and verifiable record of such transactions is hardly available.

14.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the
appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order
for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant
are being discussed and decided as under:-

In these two grounds of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition made in
the assessment order on the ground that Excel Sheet data is absolutely
uncorroborated. However this contention of the appellant is incorrect as the excel
sheet itself is the evidence. Further the same is substantiated through the
statements recorded during the course of search and seizure action. Also the
appellant has provided several opportunities but the appellant has neither been
able to produce the parties with whom the appellant carried out the direction nor
the appellant has produced any other positive evidence apart from the copy of the
registry deed which is already found to be incorrect in view of the seized material.
Further this issue has been discussed in detail in the earlier paragraphs of this
order in the adjudication of ground number 6 and 7 and 9 and 13 of the appeal
60
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

and the same are referred to and not repeated for the sake of brevity Further the
contentions of the appellant that the directors of the purchaser company did not
maintain any signed acknowledgements of payments from the appellant is a not
bona fide argument. Whether the signed documents maintained or not actually
depends upon the trust and understanding between the parties. Also it is not
necessary that all the evidences for the unaccounted transactions are maintained
by a party for ever especially even after the registry of the property had been
done there was no requirement to maintain such evidences regarding the
payments for the unaccounted transactions. The crux of the issue is that there are
evidences including the statements against the appellant that the appellant
received the unaccounted cash payment on the sale of the property and the
appellant has not produced any positive evidence to counter such evidences
which show that transaction over and above the transaction value recorded in the
property registered document. The appellant has merely denied in general and
has raised technical issues.

The appellant has also raised hypothetical issues that entries of higher payments
were recorded by the buyer company in the ledger accounts for mala fide reasons
that (i) To inflate the expenses., (ii) To deceive each other., (iii) To convince
buyers about the exaggerated cost of acquiring land so that they could fetch
higher sale money from the buyers of their projects. The appellant has merely
given hypothetical baseless possibilities and put allegations on the buyer.
However such hypothetical baseless contentions are of no help to the appellant.
The contentions are mere theoretical and not bona-fide is also proved from the
fact that no FIR and/or criminal case in court has been filed by the appellant in
this regard.

In view of this discussion theses ground of appeal are hereby dismissed.

Ground Nos. 16 & 18

15.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the order
for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant as
against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment appellant are being
discussed and decided as under:-

The appellant has contended that section 68 is not applicable to his case as the
addition is not based on credit entry in the books of accounts if any maintained by
the appellant. The appellant has contended that addition under section 68 can be
done if "any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee" meaning thereby
61
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

that the credit has to be in the books of the assessee. Undisputedly, no such
credit is found in the books of the assessee, therefore, invoking the provisions of
section 68 deserves to be quashed. The contention of the appellant is acceptable
as for making the addition under section 68 of the Act firstly there has to be
"credit" in the books of accounts or in other terms the receipt of money or receipt
of credit should be recorded by the assessee or in the books of the assessee.
The second stage of the same is that such "credit" should be found to have been
unexplained by the assessee. However in the present case there is no recording
of credit entry by the assessee or in the books of the assessee. Secondly the
nature and source of the credit itself has been established by the learned AO as
the same is from the buyer of the property which was sold by the appellant and
also the same is not the rotation of his own money by the appellant. In view of this
background, in this case the addition could not have been made under section 68
of the Act and with the finding and qualification that the same is liable to be taxed
under the chapter of capital gains as part of the sale consideration of the property
sold by the appellant. The learned AO in this regard has already held in the
assessment order on page 38 that if at an appellate state, if it is held by any
appellate authority that the cash receipts by the assessee company cannot be
treated u/s 68 of the Act, then the cash receipts will be taken as receipts for
calculations of income from capital gain for the year under consideration.

Accordingly these two grounds of appeal are adjudicated in above terms and are
treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Ground No. 19
17.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the
appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order
for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant
are being discussed and decided as under:-

The appellant/AR did not make effective submission on the Ground of Appeal No.
19.Merely the ground of appeal has been repeated in the submissions. This
shows that the appellant does not have anything to support the ground of appeal.
The same is treated as not pressed. Therefore, this ground of appeal is
dismissed.

Ground No. 20. That Section 50C of the Act provides for curbing of the
undervaluation of real state and therefore, no property can be sold for less than
the amount determined by the stamp valuation authority. In the present case, the
sale deed was executed after the valuation was calculated by stamp valuation
62
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

authority and thus, the same cannot be disputed or controverted by the
Respondents Department.

18.1 The appellant/AR did not make submission on the Ground of Appeal No. 20.
The same is treated as not pressed. Further the issue of applicability of section
50C is not emanating from the assessment order under appeal. Therefore, this
ground of appeal is dismissed.

19 Ground of Appeal No. 21 is as under:
C) Sections Involved - 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act Issue
involved - Charging of interest.

Ground No. 21: That the learned A.O has 234A, 234B and 2340 of the Act
charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.
19.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of
interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. In this regard it is stated that charging of
interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore the AO is directed to
give effect of the same on the income determined vide this appellate order.
Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the appellant on this issue is
disposed off
20. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.

7. Feeling dissatisfied with the above finding so recorded in the order of

the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the second appeal before this

tribunal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various

grounds raised by the assessee ld. AR of the assessee, has filed the

following written submissions:

I. Assessee Appellant is an HUF consisting of following Members/Co-parceners presently:

Dr. Monisha Sahai
Siddharth Sahai
Samarth Sahai

Dr. Anshu Sahai, who was Karta of the HUF, unfortunately expired on 26.05.2021.
63
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

II. The Assessee Appellant along with other family members sold certain pieces of land to
Gokul Kripa Colonizers and Developers Private Limited as per following details:

Date of Sale Consideration Paid
S.No. Name of the Seller Registry/ / Accepted Stamp Duty A.Y. PB
Sale Valuation

Madhuri Sahay 1-12
1 W/O Late Shri 05.11.2015 1,41,60,000 2016-17
R.M. Sahay

2 Anshu Sahay HUF 05.11.2015 6,69,60,000 2016-17 13-26

3 Anshu Sahay HUF 04.01.2016 9,69,60,000 2016-17 27-40

1,10,40,000 41-62

4 Anshu Sahay HUF 04.08.2016 2017-18

Anshu Sahay S/O 63-73
5 04.08.2016 10,63,20,000 2017-18
Shri R.M. Sahay

Anshu Sahay S/O 74-83
6 14.06.2016 98,40,000 2017-18
Shri R.M. Sahay

7 Anshu Sahay HUF 14.06.2016 8,35,20,000 2017-18 84-115

TOTAL 38,88,00,000

III. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was carried out by the
Income Tax Department on the Gokul Kripa Group on 19.01.2021.

IV. During the course of search, it is alleged, that certain incriminating digital data was found at
one of the premises of Gokul Kripa Group. The said digital data, as per allegations, by the
ld. AO, contained details of cash payments which allegedly were made, over and above the
cheque payments, towards consideration for purchase of the above lands from the
Assessee Appellant along with other family members.

V. The details of such alleged cash payments are appearing at pages 4 to 14 of the order of
the ld. AO. It is alleged that the total cash payments, emerging from above digital data, in
64
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

all, amounted to Rs. 56,31,38,250/- made to all the family members towards all the sale
transactions spanning over the following 3 financial years (ld. AO Pages 34)

Cash received in Rs.
F.Y.

FY 15-16 26,79,94,750

FY 16-17 24,39,64,500

FY 17-18 5,11,79,000

Total 56,31,38,250

VI. Ld. AO apportioned the alleged on-money paid in cash in proportion to cheque amount
received by individual seller and, thereafter, said amount was further bifurcated into three
financial years. The said workings are appearing at page 35 of the order of the ld. AO and
are reproduced below for quick reference:

S.No(i) Name of the Amount received Total amount Prop. Amount
assessee(ii) through cheque(iii) received in cash received in cash
in ratio of
(iv) amount received
in cheque(iii*iv/vi)

1 AnshuSahay HUF 25,84,80,000 56,31,38,250 37,43,82,651

2 Dr.MadhuriSahay 1,41,60,000 2,05,09,356

3 Shri AnshuSahay 11,61,60,000 16,82,46,252
65
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Total 38,88,00,000(vi) 56,31,38,250

S.No Name of the assessee FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Total

AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19

1 Anshu Sahay HUF 16,21,91,214 17,81,66,880 3,40,24,557 37,43,82,651

2 Dr. Madhuri Sahay 88,85,130 97,60,300 18,63,926 2,05,09,356

3 Shri Anshu Sahay 7,28,88,165 8,00,67,570 1,52,90,517 16,82,46,252

24,39,64,509 26,79,94,750 5,11,79,000 56,31,38,249

VII. Facts in all the three years are identical. A.Y. 2016-17 in ITA NO. 466/JPR/ 2025 may
please be treated as the "Lead Case". Ld. CIT(A) has also given detailed findings in A.Y.
2016-17 only and referred the same in remaining two years i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-
19.

VIII. On the basis of above presumptions and apportionment, following additions have been
made towards alleged consideration received for sale of land over and above the
consideration received through banking channel:

Assessment Year Amount (in Rs.)
2016-17 16,21,91,214/-
2017-18 17,81,66,880/-
2018-19 3,40,24,557/-

GROUND NO. 1: Reopening by recourse to section 153C

1.1. Necessary satisfaction was drawn by ld. ACIT Central Circle -2, Jaipur and was sent to
the ld. AO having jurisdiction of the Assessee Appellant for initiating action u/s 153C of
the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide letter no. 368 dated 17.10.2022. (Ld. AO Page 1)
66
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

1.2. It is submitted that provisions of section 153C are not applicable for searches initiated on
or after 01.04.2021. In the instant case, for the purpose of Section 153C, the deemed
date of search is 17.10.2022. In this view of the matter, the date of search for the
Assessee Appellant being 17.10.2022, the invoking of the provisions of section 153C is
invalid and without jurisdiction.

1.3. It is submitted that copies of satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO of the searched person
and satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO of the Assessee Appellant have not been
provided. It is therefore, presumed that, no proper satisfaction being recorded which is a
precondition for assuming the jurisdiction. Therefore, the order passed u/s 153C is
invalid and without jurisdiction.

1.4. It is submitted that, the proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation as they have been
taken for period beyond 6 years prior to the deemed date of search and the order
passed deserves to be cancelled.

In view of the above, the entire assessment order deserves to be quashed as it is passed illegally
without proper jurisdiction.

GROUND NO. 2: Order passed without proper approval under section 153 D

2.1. All the seven Assessment Years i.e. A.Y. 2015-16, A.Y. 2016-17, A.Y. 2017-18, A.Y.
2018-19, A.Y. 2019-20, A.Y. 2020-21, A.Y. 2021-22 were approved in just one day. The
draft assessment orders by ld. AO were sent, for approval, on 22.03.2024 and all the
seven assessment orders were approved on 23.03.2024 [PB 188- 195].

2.2. The prime object of entrusting the duty of approval of assessment in search cases is that
the Additional CIT, with his experience and maturity of understanding should scrutinize
the seized documents and any other material forming the foundation of assessment.
Whenever any statutory obligation is casted upon any statutory authority such authority
is required to discharge its obligation not mechanically, but after due application of mind.
Thus, the obligation of granting approval acts as an inbuilt protection to the taxpayer
against arbitrary or unjust exercise of discretion by the Ld. AO.

2.3. Now, coming to the facts of the case under consideration, the approval granted is
absolutely mechanical without even analysing the basic evidences as just in one day
completing the approval process is humanely not possible. This approval was granted
along with discharging other regular official functions and maybe also other such
approvals.

2.4. In this regard, kind attention is drawn towards the following judicial pronouncement
wherein, it has been held that if the approval is granted by the superior authorities in
67
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

mechanical manner without application of mind, then, the very purpose of obtaining
approval is defeated.

In the case of Shreelekha Damani V. DCIT (2015) 173 TTJ (Mumbai) 332, ITAT Mumbai
held that:

"Coming to the facts of the case in hand in the light of the analytical discussion
hereinabove and as mentioned elsewhere, the Addl. Commissioner has showed his
inability to analyze the issues of draft order on merit clearly stating that no much time is
left, inasmuch as the draft order was placed before him on 31.12.2010 and the approval
was granted on the very same day. Considering the factual matrix of the approval letter,
we have no hesitation to hold that the approval granted by the Addl. Commissioner is
devoid of any application of mind, is mechanical and without considering the materials
on record. In our considered opinion, the power vested in the Joint Commissioner/Addl
Commissioner to grant or not to grant approval is coupled with a duty. The Addl
Commissioner/Joint Commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposals put up
to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the AO. The said power
cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. We are constrained to observe
that in the present case, there has been no application of mind by the Addl.
Commissioner before granting the approval. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold
that the assessment order made u/s. 143(3) of the Act r.w. sec. 153A of the Act is bad in
law and deserves to be annulled. The additional ground of appeal is allowed."

2.5. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S.
Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64.taxmann.com 313 (SC) wherein the
department's SLP was dismissed.

Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical
Ltd. [2015] 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) has held as under:

"..7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction,
the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the
case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:--
'The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory
obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the
format "Yes, I am satisfied" which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted
line. Even otherwise also, the exercise is shown to have been performed in less than
24 hours of time which also goes to indicate that the Commissioner did not apply his
mind at all while granting sanction. The satisfaction has to be with objectivity on
objective material.'
8. If the case in hand is analysed on the basis of the aforesaid principle, the
mechanical way of recording satisfaction by the Joint Commissioner, which accords
sanction for issuing notice under section 148, is clearly unsustainable and we find
68
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

that on such consideration both the appellate authorities have interfered into the
matter. In doing so, no error has been committed warranting reconsideration.
9. As far as explanation to Section 151, brought into force by Finance Act, 2008 is
concerned, the same only pertains to issuance of notice and not with regard to the
manner of recording satisfaction. That being so, the said amended provision does
not help the revenue.
10. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned appellate authorities
and the law laid down in the case of Arjun Singh (supra), we see no question of law
involved in the matter, warranting reconsideration.
11. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed..."

In view of the above, the order passed may please be quashed in entirety being without proper
approval under section 153D.

GROUND NO. 3: Additions towards unaccounted sale consideration against sale of land

3.1. Following submissions were made before ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate
proceedings before him (A.Y. 2016-17- lead case):

"3.2.1. It is submitted that, the alleged on-money payments in cash are spread over a
period starting from 15.09.2015 and ending on 18.03.2018. This period
extends to 30 months. It is submitted that registered sale deeds were
executed on following dates:

Name of the Seller Date of Registry/Sale

Madhuri Sahay W/O Late
05.11.2015
Shri R.M. Sahay

Anshu Sahay HUF 05.11.2015

Anshu Sahay HUF 04.01.2016

Anshu Sahay HUF 04.08.2016

Anshu Sahay S/O Shri
04.08.2016
R.M. Sahay

Anshu Sahay S/O Shri
14.06.2016
R.M. Sahay

Anshu Sahay HUF 14.06.2016
69
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

3.2.2. It is submitted that last of the sale deed was executed on 04.08.2016
whereas last of the alleged payments was received as late as on
18.03.2018. The gap is about 19 months.

3.2.3. It is unbelievable that any prudent seller, if at all, proposing to receive on-
money, would sign the sale deed and get it registered making the buyer
legal owner of the land without receiving the on-money.

3.2.4. It is a common sense that in such a situation, the seller would have no right,
least, the legal right to recover the on money. This glaring anomaly in the
approach of the ld. AO clearly establishes the fallacy in the action of the ld.
AO.

3.2.5. It is submitted that, nowhere in the names of the recipients of the on-
money, name of assessee appellant is appearing. It is submitted that
neither during the course of search nor during post search, the recipients
were ever confronted by the Department to find out the truth in this regard.
It was the legal responsibility of the search team to conduct complete
inquiry in this regard so as to surface the truth.

3.2.6. In the digital data the name of the assessee appellant is appearing only at 3
places i.e. Serial Nos. 149, 164 and 166 (AO Pages 12 and 13). Whenever
any payment was made to Anshu Sahai HUF, specific mention of it is there.
Therefore, without specific mention of Anshu Sahai HUF, no cash payment
can be imputed to have been made to assessee appellant i.e. Anshu Sahai
HUF.

3.2.7. It is submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the
assessee appellent clearly denied having received any payment in cash.

3.2.8. It is most humbly submitted that the said Excel Sheet data is absolutely
uncorroborated. There is no underlying evidence which could substantiate
such entries in the Excel Sheet. It is worthwhile to note that payments have
allegedly been made over a period of 30 months and that too by 4 directors
namely Sumer Singh Saini, Sangeeta Saini, Phool Chand Saini and Rajesh
Kumar. It is beyond comprehension that 4 persons making payments over a
period of 30 months would executes that task without maintaining
underlying data and also without obtaining signatures of the recipients. This
again proves that action of ld. AO is without any basis and beyond human
probabilities.

3.2.9. It is quite possible that such data was falsely maintained by the directors for
the following possible reasons: -
70
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

A. To inflate the expenses.
B. To deceive each other.
C. To convince buyers about the exaggerated cost of acquiring land so
that they could fetch higher sale money from the buyers of their
projects.

3.2.10. It is submitted that in the Excel Sheet, many payments are in the multiples
of hundreds which normally do not look plausible when such huge payment
was to be made in cash. Similarly, on various dates, payments are made by
more than one directors or even by all the directors which again do not look
plausible.

3.2.11. The Excel Sheet relied upon by ld. AO was neither prepared by the
assessee nor was found from the control and possession of the assessee.
This said Excel Sheet was said to be maintained by a 3rd person and was
also found from the possession of a 3rd person. In view of this, no adverse
inference can be drawn against the assessee on the basis of said Excel
Sheet. It is further submitted that there is discrepancy / disconnect in the
figure appearing in the tables at Page 36 and 37 of the order of the ld. AO.

3.2.12. It is submitted that the entire exercise of ld. AO is based on presumptions.
The addition can be made on the basis of a specific evidence pin pointing
the specific date / year. Any assumption /apportionment cannot take the
place of evidence.

3.2.13.i. It is submitted that electronic records have been relied upon by ld.AO without
complying with the requirements of Information Technology Act, 2000 read
with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

3.2.13.ii Documents, as relied upon by the Id. AO, are the extracts of the excel
sheet alleged to have been maintained by Gokul Kripa Group and seized
during the course of search on 19.01.2021.

3.2.13.iii. Ld. AO has not recorded any satisfaction in his order that all the requisite
steps were taken by him to ensure that the data output of the PEN
Drives/Computer records, seized during the search on Gokul Kripa Group
were analysed on "as is" basis and there is no risk of it being tempered by
anyone.

3.2.14 It is submitted that for the sale of the lands, duly registered sale deeds were
executed between the assessee and buyer. The act of the ld. AO, of
treating additional amount as being paid for the sale of the property over
and above what was specified in the registered sale deed merely based on
71
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

unrelated digital evidence is against the law laid down in Section 91 and 92
of the Evidence Act, 1872.

3.2.15 During the course of assessment proceedings, specific request was made
for providing opportunity of cross examination of the directors of the Gokul
Kripa Group. Ld. AO, for the reasons best known to him, did not provide
any such opportunity. It is submitted that there is no corroborative evidence
to prove the payments and, therefore, cross examination became vital. No
addition can be made without providing opportunity to cross examine the
persons whose statements are used against the assessee. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman
Timber Industries (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006) held that "...not
allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating
Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of
the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity
inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because
of which the assessee was adversely affected".

3.2.16. Since the addition u/s 68 are unwarranted, therefore, the very invoking of
the provisions of section 115BBE are illegal and therefore deserves to be
quashed.

3.2.23 It is also unbelievable and fails the common sense test that any person
would preserve the said data till 19.01.2021 (date of search) when last of
cash payment was made on 18.03.2018 and last of the registries was
executed on 04.08.2016. It is submitted that, the alleged preserved sheet
data would be of no help in case any dispute arises between buyer and
seller because this is not supported by any evidence of actual receipt and
payment which normally one may preserve to safeguard oneself against
any further dispute."

3.2. Ld. CIT(A) did not deal with the factual inconsistencies brought to his notice as above.
He simply rejected the submissions mentioning that what details and in what manner are
kept by the buyer is dependent on the trust he has on the seller.

3.3. In respect of the submissions that no corroborative evidences were found, ld. CIT(A)
rejected the submission by observing as under at pages 71 and 72 of his Order:

"Further the contentions of the appellant that the directors of the purchaser company did
not maintain any signed acknowledgements of payments from the appellant is not a
bona fide argument. Whether the signed documents maintained or not actually depends
upon the trust and understanding between the parties. Also it is not necessary that all the
evidences for the unaccounted transactions are maintained by a party for ever especially
even after the registry of the property had been done there was no requirement to
72
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

maintain such evidences regarding the payments for the unaccounted transactions. The
crux of the issue is that there are evidences including the statements against the
appellant that the appellant received the unaccounted cash payment on the sale of the
property and the appellant has not produced any positive evidence to counter such
evidences which show that transaction over and above the transaction value recorded in
the property registered document. The appellant has merely denied in general and has
raised technical issues."

3.4. It was submitted before ld. CIT(A) that no prudent seller would keep the cash payment
pending after the sale deed having registered. The gap, it was submitted, was about 19
months. Ld. CIT(A) has accepted this aspect when he has admitted that when registry of
the property had been done there was no requirement to maintain such evidences
regarding the payment for unaccounted transactions. In spite of this ld. CIT(A) has
dismissed the appeal by placing reliance on the alleged digital data.

3.5. The Assessee Appellant also contended that the seized material was in the nature of
dumb document which would not possess any stand-alone evidentiary value since it did
not contain the complete particulars of the relevant transactions and the persons
involved in the said transactions. The addition as made on the basis of such a dumb
document would not be sustainable. A non-speaking document, without any
corroborative material / evidence or without a finding that such document had
materialized into transactions giving rise to income of the Assessee Apellant, was to be
disregarded fully.

3.6. The Assessee Appellant further contended that the burden was on revenue to prove that
the Assessee Appellant was in receipt of income which was sought to be taxed. The Ld.
AO was wrong in requiring the Assessee Appellant to discharge a reverse burden of
proof that such payments were not received by the Assessee Appellant.

3.7. Ld. CIT(A), on the contrary, has dismissed the appeal for the main reason that Assessee
Appellant had not produced any positive evidence to show that he did not receive any
money over and above the transaction value recorded in the property registered
document. He further observed that opportunity in this regard was given during appellant
proceedings also. These observations were made by the ld. CIT(A) at pages 62, 69 and
71 of his Order, which are reproduces as under respectively:

".....Neither in the appeal nor in the assessment proceedings the appellant had given
any positive evidence and the appellant did not produce the parties for cross
examination with whom the appellant had entered into transactions of large amounts.
From the perusal of the assessment order it is seen that the learned AO has effectively
dealt with the issue in detail and the contention of the appellant is found to be incorrect.
Further without prejudice, powers of the CIT Appeal are considered as co-terminus with
that of the assessing authority and further opportunity has been provided to the appellant
73
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

in the present appellate proceedings and no further grievance remains. Accordingly this
ground of appeal is hereby dismissed." (Page 62)

"......Further, there is no likelihood or very less likelihood of finding of material in this
regard from the search action of the buyer as the buyer had already bought the property
registered and any paper or understanding agreement if any in this regard would be
available with the appellant only where no search and seizure action took place....."
(Page 69)

"....Also the appellant has provided several opportunities but the appellant has neither
been able to produce the parties with whom the appellant carried out the direction nor
the appellant has produced any other positive evidence apart from the copy of the
registry deed which is already found to be incorrect in view of the seized material...."
(Page 71)

3.8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) held
that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability were fulfilled would always
be on the revenue and throwing the burden of showing that there was no under-
statement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible
burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not receive any
consideration beyond what has been declared by him. Thus, the burden would be on
revenue to adduce proper evidence to corroborate the contents of the seized material for
the purpose of establishing that the assessee was, in fact, in receipt of the payments as
noted in the seized material. Discharge of reverse burden is not expected from the
assessee.

3.9. The prime question that would arise would be that whether such entries found in the
material seized from a third-party could be used to draw adverse inference against the
assessee without there being anything more in record in corroboration of the same.
Further, the aforesaid material was not seized from the premises of the assessee nor the
same was found in the handwriting of the assessee. Therefore, the same would not
constitute adequate evidence to draw any adverse inference against the assessee in the
absence of any corroborative evidence as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case
of CIT v. Sant Lal (118 Taxmann.com 432). The Hon'ble Court, in similar circumstances,
held that such kind of entries could not form the basis of addition when the revenue
failed to produce any other cogent material to link the assessee to the diary. Similar was
the situation in the present case.

3.10. In the case of CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017)(397 ITR 246) (Bom), it was held that
where entire decision is based on huge amounts revealed from seized documents but
not supported by any evidence of actual cash passing hands, no addition can be made.
74
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

3.11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause v. UOI (2017) 77 Taxmann.com
254 (SC) held as under: -

"We are constrained to observe that the Court has to be on guard while ordering
investigation against any important constitutional functionary, officers or any person in
the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material. When the material on the basis
of which investigation is sought is itself irrelevant to constitute evidence and not
admissible in evidence, we have apprehension whether it would be safe to even initiate
investigation. In case we do so, the investigation can be ordered as against any person
whosoever high in integrity on the basis of irrelevant or inadmissible entry falsely made,
by any unscrupulous person or business house that too not kept in regular books of
account but on random papers at any given point of time. There has to be some relevant
and admissible evidence and some cogent reason, which is prima facie reliable and that
too, supported by some other circumstances pointing out that the particular third person
against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he
has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random
entries. In case we do not insist for all these, the process of law can be abused against
all and sundry very easily to achieve ulterior goals and then no democracy can survive in
case investigations are lightly set in motion against important constitutional functionaries
on the basis of fictitious entries, in absence of cogent and admissible material on record,
lest liberty of an individual be compromised unnecessarily."

3.12. The aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court stresses the need for exercising
caution and for bringing on record relevant, reliable and cogent evidence to corroborate
the entries found in loose sheets or pen drives regarding the payments allegedly made
so that the process of law is not abused by unscrupulous persons in order to achieve
ulterior goals. Therefore, it was important that the corroborative evidence was available
on record in support of the entries in the seized material found in the premises of a third-
party not written in the handwriting of the alleged receiver.

3.13. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Riveria Properties Private Limited v. ITO (ITA
No.250/Mum/2013) held that Ld. AO was required to bring further evidence to show that
the money had actually exchanged between the parties in a case where there was no
other evidence on record to prove that on-money was paid except the loose sheet found
in the premise of a third-party and admission made by the third-party.

3.14. There was no corroborative evidence to prove that the payments noted in the seized
material had actually materialized and transfer of money had actually taken place
between the concerned parties. The Assessee Appellant has not received any cash on
sale of land to Gokul Kripa Group. Had Gokul Kripa Group paid such huge cash to the
Assessee Appellant some documentary evidence as to the receipt of cash by the
Assessee Appellant must have been found. Hence, in the absence of any such
document solely on the basis of amount noted in the excel sheet it cannot be alleged
that Assessee Appellant received any cash amount on sale of land to Gokul Kripa.
75
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

3.15. It is submitted that if in case of searched person any paper/document is found which
contains the name of third person, it cannot be presumed that the amount noted in such
paper/ document in the name of third person is correct unless some direct evidence in
relation to that is found. In the present case, only because certain cash amount is noted
in the name of Assessee Appellant in the said excel sheet it cannot be presumed that
the same is correct unless some evidence of receipt of such cash by the Assessee
Appellant is found in search. If it is so presumed then any person in his paper/document
can record the name of some other person and on that basis the tax liability cannot be
fastened on such person.

3.16. In case Gokul Kripa Group had paid such huge cash to the Assessee Appellant, then
some documentary evidence as the receipt of cash or unregistered sale deed would
have been found at the searched premises of Gokul Kripa Group, wherein Assessee
Appellant would have acknowledged the receipt of cash payments. However, no such
documentary evidence was found the searched premises. Accordingly, it is beyond the
understanding of the Assessee Appellant that on what basis ld. AO has presumed that
the alleged cash payments have been made to the Assessee Appellant.

3.17. No Corresponding Digital Trail or Communication Exchange:

3.17.i. In today's digital age, any significant financial transaction, especially one
involving such large amounts, would be preceded by discussions,
confirmations, or instructions via WhatsApp messages, emails, SMS or call
records.

3.17.ii. The fact that no such communication has been discovered between the
Assessee Appellant and Gokul Kripa Group regarding cash payments
strongly proves that no such transaction took place.

3.17.iii. If such an agreement truly existed, there would be some form of evidence
in the form of WhatsApp chats, emails or SMS records exchanged between
the buyer and seller, detailing the terms and timing of cash payments. The
complete absence of any such evidence renders the claim highly
speculative and unreliable.

3.18. Similarly, as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CBI v. VC
Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410 and Dhakeshwari Cotton MiIIs (26 ITR 775),
corroborative evidence would be essential to support the evidence found in third-party
premises.

3.19. Excel sheet being dumb Document cannot be the sole basis for addition:

The Excel Sheet relied upon by the Id. AO in the assessment has no evidentiary Value
on account of the following reasons:
76
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

3.19.i. The document relied upon is merely an Excel sheet, which lacks any formal
acknowledgment, signature, date or identifiable origin.

3.19.ii. It is neither a signed ledger nor an authenticated financial record, but rather
an unverified, self-generated document that does not meet the standards of
admissible evidence under the law.

3.20. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of
DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, [2024] 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon'ble High
Court examined the following question at para 21 of the Order:

(1) Whether 'Loose Sheets' and 'Diary' have an evidentiary value?

The Hon'ble High Court answered in favour of the assessee as under at para 26 of the
Order:

"26. It is established in law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a sheet of paper containing
typed entries and in loose form, not shown to form part of the books of accounts
regularly maintained by the assessee or his business entities, do not constitute material
evidence. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that
the action taken by the respondent/Revenue against the Assessee based on the material
contained in the diaries/loose sheets, are contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. In that view of the matter, impugned notices issued under section 153C of
the Act, based on the loose sheets/diaries are contrary to law, which require to be set
aside in these writ appeals, as the same are void and illegal."

3.21. Illogical & Impractical Business Conduct- The claim that a buyer paid Rs. 37.43 crores in
cash over multiple transactions without obtaining a single signed agreement,
acknowledgement, or receipt from the seller is highly implausible. No prudent
businessperson would make such a substantial payment without legal documentation to
safeguard his interest.

3.22. Possibility of Data Manipulation or Fraudulent Representation- The data in the excel
sheet may have been fabricated or manipulated for ulterior motives. It could have been
prepared to conceal payments made to other parties or to inflate property values for
misleading future buyers. It could also be to inflate expenses and claim set off against
own on money receipt by the buyer of the lands on subsequent plotting project on the
said land. Without independent verification, the figures mentioned in the sheet remain
77
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

speculative and unreliable.

3.23. The buyer of the land, in his self-interest and to set off the on money which he had
received from sale of plots, might have created this document. This aspect is evident
from the admission of the buyer which is forming part of the questionnaire dated
18.12.2023 issued by the ld. AO attached to the notice u/s 142(1). Relevant extract is
reproduced below:

"2. Gokul Kripa Group has made payments in cash out of books while purchasing the
land for its projects.

c) This fact has also been admitted by the members of the assessee group and the
cash payments made to purchase land from various sellers of land was claimed to
be out of cash receipts from sales of plots. The assessee including his family
members {Shri Anshu Sahay(Individual) and Ms. Madhuri Sahay} have also sold
their land to the assessee group."

3.24. The alleged incriminating material is an internal document of the Gokul Kripa Group and
merely the name of the Assessee Appellant is mentioned on it without any documentary
evidence against the Assessee Appellant.

3.25. Ld. AO did not bring on record any finding that the land so sold by the Assessee
Appellant could fetch that much of value. No comparable instance was quoted.

3.26. Further, the ld. AO claims that these alleged cash payments were made in multiple
tranches before and after the date of the registered sale deed. However, in any standard
business transaction, a prudent buyer/ seller would always ensure legal safeguards --
such as an agreement to sell or a receipt of payment -- to protect their financial interest.
The absence of any such document in this case clearly suggests that the figures
recorded in the Excel Sheet are speculative and lack any direct nexus with the Assessee
Appellant. It is well-settled that entries in an unverified document cannot be the sole
basis for an addition unless supported by corroborative evidence.

3.27. Apportionment and Bifurcation

3.27.i. Ld. AO, using guess work, has apportioned and bifurcated the alleged cash
payments to different sellers and in different years (AO order page 35).

3.27.ii. Tax assessments cannot be based on such guess work, estimation,
assumption, presumption, surmises and conjectures.

3.27.iii. Without prejudice and without agreeing it is submitted that each seller was
independent, owned independent lands. Therefore, each owner must have
bargained the rate independently. Ld. Lower Authorities have no evidence
to support the exact amount which have been taxed in the hands of
78
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

different assesses in different years. Without such evidences- qua the
assessee and qua the year- no addition is sustainable. Any document not
unequivocally revealing such details is a deaf and dumb document which
cannot be relied upon in any tax proceedings.

3.28. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench at Jaipur in the
case of Shri Prakash Chand Kothari v. DCIT in ITA No. 1190/JP/2019; ITA No.
1298/JP/2019; ITA No. 66/JP/2020 order dated 12.10.2021.

In this decision, Hon'ble Jaipur Bench has placed reliance on the following judgments
and has gainfully reproduced the relevant portions in its order which are reproduced
below for ready reference:

i. DCIT v. Aarti Colonizer Company (2019) 202 TTJ 69 (Raipur)
ii. Anil Jaggi v. ACIT [2018] 168 ITD 612 (Mumbai)
iii. ACIT v. Ms. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (Mumbai)

"64. It was submitted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Lavanya
Land (P) Ltd. (2017) 297 CTR 204(Bom.) (HC) held that if the entries on loose sheet of
paper, found during search, are not corroborated by any other evidence, no addition can
be made. Similarly, in another case of Aarti Colonizers Company, certain incriminating
material in the form of data stored in electronic medium was found in search conducted
on the partners of the assessee firm. On the basis of such electronic evidences,
additions were made in the hands of the assessee firm. Such additions were
subsequently deleted by the Raipur Bench of the Tribunal (ITA No. 178 to180/RPR/2014
dated 01.07.2019) and it was observed by the Tribunal that no material was found to
show that the amount contained in the data was paid by the assessee firm at any point
of time. Resultantly, in the absence of any corroborative evidences no addition can be
made.

84. We find that similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Mumbai Benches in case
of Anil Jaggi vs ACIT (supra). In that case, payment of on- money by assessee, Anil
Jaggi, was noticed in the course of search in the Hiranandani Group in respect of
purchase of certain properties. The Coordinate Bench after appreciating the entirety of
facts and circumstances held that the findings of the Assessing officer that assessee had
paid "on money" for purchase of property under consideration is based on the contents
of the pen drive which was seized from the residence of an ex- employee of Hiranandani
group and the information as emerges from the print out of the pen drive falls short of
material facts and remain uncorroborated and mere admission of the amounts recorded
in the pen drive as the additional income by Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani in his application
before the Settlement Commission falling short of any such material which would
inextricably evidence payment of "on money" by the assessee would not lead to drawing
of adverse inference as regards the investment made by the assessee for purchase of
79
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

the property under consideration and additions made by lower authorities were deleted
and the relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench read as under:

"14. We shall now take up the case of the assessee on merits and deliberate on the
validity of the addition of Rs. 2.23 crore made by the A.O on the ground that the
assessee had made a payment of "on money" for purchase of flats from M/s
Lakeview developers. We have perused the facts of the case and the material
available on record on the basis of which the addition of Rs. 2.23 crore had been
made in the hands of the assessee. We have further deliberated on the material
placed on record and the contentions of the ld. A.R to drive home his contention that
no payment of any "on money" was made by the assessee for purchase of flats from
M/s Lakeview Developers. We find that the genesis of the conclusion of the A.O that
the assessee had paid "on money" of Rs. 2.23 crore for purchase of property under
consideration is based on the contents of the pen drive which was seized from the
residence of an ex-employee of Hiranandani group. We have perused the print out of
the pen drive (Page 42 of APB) and find ourselves to be in agreement with the view of
the ld A.R that though against the heading "Amount of on money paid" the name,
address and PAN No. of the assessee is mentioned alongwith the details of the
property purchased by him, viz. Flat no.2501 in "Somerset" building from Lakeview
Developers (a Hiranandani group concern), however, the same would not
conclusively prove suppression of investment and payment of "on money" by the
assessee for purchase of the property under consideration. We find that the
information as emerges from the print out of the pen drive falls short of certain
material facts, viz. date and mode of receipt of 'on money', who had paid the money,
to whom the money was paid, date of agreement and who had prepared the details,
as a result whereof the adverse inferences as regards payment of "on money" by the
assessee for purchase of the property under consideration remain uncorroborated.
We further find that what was the source from where the information was received in
the pen drive also remains a mystery till date. We find that Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani
in the course of his cross-examination had clearly stated that neither he was aware of
the person who had made the entry in the pen drive, nor had with him any evidence
that the assessee had paid any cash towards purchase of flat. We have deliberated
on the fact that Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani in his statement recorded on oath in the
course of the Search & seizure proceedings had confirmed that the amounts
aggregating to Rs. 475.60 crore recorded in the pen drive were the on-money
received on sale of flats, which was offered as additional income under Sec. 132(4)
and thereafter offered as such for tax in the petition filed before the Settlement
commission. We are of the considered view that there is substantial force in the
contention of the ld. A.R that mere admission of the amounts recorded in the pen
drive as the additional income by Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani, falling short of any such
material which would inextricably evidence payment of "on money" by the assessee
would not lead to drawing of adverse inferences as regards the investment made by
the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration. We rather hold a
strong conviction that the very fact that the consideration paid by the assessee for
80
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

purchase of the property under consideration when pitted against the 'market value'
fixed by the stamp valuation authority is found to be substantially high, further fortifies
the veracity of the claim of the assessee that his investment made towards purchase
of the property under consideration was well in order. We are of the considered view
that though the material acted upon by the department for drawing of adverse
inferences as regards payment of "on money" by the assessee formed a strong basis
for doubting the investment made by the assessee for purchase of the property under
consideration, but the same falling short of clinching material which would have
irrefutably evidenced the said fact, thus, does not inspire much of confidence as
regards the way they have been construed by the lower authorities for drawing of
adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee. We thus are of a strong conviction
that as the material relied upon by the lower authorities does not corroborate the
adverse inferences drawn as regards the investment made by the assessee,
therefore, the same cannot conclusively form a basis for concluding that the assessee
had made payment of "on money" for purchase of the property under consideration.
We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that
the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards payment of "on money" of Rs.
2.23 crore by the assessee for purchase of Flat No. 2501 from M/s Lakeview
Developers are based on of premature observations of the A.O, which in the absence
of any clinching evidence cannot be sustained. We thus are unable to subscribe to
the view of the lower authorities and set aside the order of the CIT (A) sustaining the
addition of Rs. 2.23 crores in the hands of the assessee."

86. In this regard, we find that under similar fact pattern, Coordinate Benches of the
Tribunal have taken a similar view and reference can be drawn to decision of the
Coordinate Mumbai Benches in case of Katrina Rosemary Turcotte (supra). In this case,
on the basis of a print out taken from the computer back-up of Ms. Sandhya
Ramchandra, assessee's manager and assessee's agent Matrix India, it was concluded
by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 2,50,000 in
cash for appearing as a host at an ICC event in Sidney. The Coordinate Bench deleted
the additions holding that the addition was made on the basis of a print out taken from
the computer of a third party who happened to be an employee of Matrix and there are
no other corroborative evidence brought on record to prove the fact that the payment
mentioned in the seized material was actually received by the assessee and relevant
findings read as under:

"8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record.
Undisputedly, on the basis of a print out taken from the computer back-up of Ms.
Sandhya Ramchandra, it was concluded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee
has received an amount of Rs. 2,50,000 in cash for appearing as a host at an ICC
event in Sidney. It is very much clear that apart from this document, there was no
other evidence before the Assessing Officer to indicate that the assessee has
received cash amount in question. It is a fact that in course of search as well as post
search proceedings, the assessee was confronted with seized material and the
81
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

assessee categorically stated to have neither appeared as a host in the said event
nor received any cash from Matrix. In fact, an Affidavit was also filed on behalf of
Matrix categorically stating that no such cash payment of Rs. 2,50,000 was made to
the assessee. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is to be seen that the addition was
made on the basis of a print out taken from the computer of a third party who
happened to be an employee of Matrix and there are no other corroborative evidence
brought on record to prove the fact that the payment mentioned in the seized material
was actually received by the assessee. On the contrary, the passport submitted by
the assessee clearly established the fact that neither she had travelled to Sidney in
relevant period nor hosted the ICC event for which she was supposed to receive cash
payment. It is further relevant to observe, even Ms. Sandhya Ramchandra, from
whose computer such print out was taken had stated before the Departmental
Authorities that she was not aware of the fact mentioned in the said Annexure as it
was for a period prior to her appointment in Matrix. In these circumstances, simply
relying upon a untested / unverified document and without any other corroborative
evidence to demonstrate that the assessee has actually received cash payment of
Rs. 2,50,000 for hosting an event in Sidney, the addition, in our view, is
unsustainable. Therefore, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner
(Appeals) on this issue by dismissing the ground raised."

87. Similarly, in case of Aarti Colonizer Company (supra), the matter came up before the
Coordinate Raipur Benches of the Tribunal where it was held that the addition has been
made by the assessing officer on the basis of the screenshot of journal entry dt. 4-9-
2007 taken from the tally data in the pen drive found during the course of search and the
printout of the details of land which has been reproduced by the assessing officer and
other than these two materials, since no evidence has been brought on record by the
Assessing officer and since nothing was found during search establishing any
investment/payment made by the assessee, the two evidences relied upon by the
Assessing officer, on a standalone basis cannot form the basis for invoking section 69.
Therefore, it was held that provisions section 69 are not attracted as neither the
Assessing officer discharged the initial burden cast upon him to prove investment nor
any material has been brought on record to this effect and additions were held to be
rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A) and the relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench read
as under:

8. The learned counsel of the assessee submitted before us that in assessment year
2008-09, addition of Rs. 10,06,43,054 comprises of two additions, one of Rs.
7,32,98,821 and the other of Rs. 2,73,44,233. The facts relating to both the additions
are different and therefore both these additions need to be adjudicated at length. We
observe that the addition of Rs. 7,32,98,821 has been made by the assessing officer
on the basis of the screenshot of journal entry dt. 4-9-2007 taken from the tally data in
the pen drive and the printout of the details of land which has been reproduced by the
assessing officer on page Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessment order as table 1. Other
than these two materials, there is no other basis for making addition, which is
82
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

undisputed fact as per record also accepted by the learned Commissioner
Departmental Representative. The assessing officer has made addition invoking
section 69. As held inCIT v. Naresh Khattar (HUF) (supra) and CIT v. Dinesh Jain
HUF (supra), the initial burden is on the Revenue to establish that there is any
investment, which has not been recorded in books and in respect which the assessee
is not able to give satisfactory explanation to the assessing officer. As rightly
contended by learned Authorised Representative of the assessee, neither the journal
entry nor the details of land were reproduced in table 1 on page Nos. 2 and 3 of the
assessment order to establish that any investment was made by die assessee firm.
The journal entry dt. 4-9-2007 is only an accounting entry passed for introducing the
land as capital contribution by the partners who purchased the lands and therefore,
this cannot be considered as evidence of investment. It is undisputed that neither
during search nor during the assessment proceedings, any material was found to
show that the amount contained in the journal entry was paid by the assessee firm to
anyone at any time. Therefore, only on the basis of journal entry, section 69 could not
have been invoked. As regards the details of land given on page Nos. 2 and 3 of
assessment order as table 1, it merely contains some details about different lands
and it does not contain even a whisper about any investment or payment made by
anyone. We observe that the inference has been drawn by the assessing officer only
on the basis of the three figures mentioned at the end of the table, on page No. 3 of
the assessment order. This, in our considered view, cannot be considered to be
evidence of payment/investment. It is undisputed that during search or thereafter
during the assessment proceedings, no material was found or brought on record
evidencing that the three figures referred to above represent any actual
investment/payment by the assessee. As rightly contended by the learned Authorised
Representative of the assessee, that the details given in the chart are not evidence of
any payment/investment. Since no evidence has been brought on record by the
assessing officer and since nothing was found during search establishing any
investment/payment made by the assessee, the two evidences relied upon by the
assessing officer, on a standalone basis, in our considered view, cannot form basis
for invoking section 69. Therefore, we hold that provisions section 69 are not attracted
as neither the assessing officer discharged the initial burden cast upon him to prove
investment nor any material has been brought on record to this effect.

8.1 A perusal of the journal entry dt. 4-9-2007, which has been one of the basis for
addition, shows that through this journal entry, the lands was purchased by the two
persons named in the journal entry and was being introduced as their capital
contribution in the partnership firm. Since, these journal entries have been relied upon
by the assessing officer. Thus, it has remained undisputed that the lands were not
purchased by the assessee but by the two persons as named in the journal entry.
When the lands were not purchased by the assessee firm, any question of payment of
"on money" does not arise in the case of assessee firm. As rightly contended by
learned Authorised Representative of the assessee, that all the lands, except one,
described in the assessment order on page Nos. 2 and 3, were purchased prior to
83
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

formation of the assessee firm. We observe that in para 3 of the assessment order,
the assessing officer has himself mentioned that the assessee firm was formed on 4-
9-2007. As evident from different entries of land given in table 1 in the assessment
order, the date of purchase in all the cases, except in one case, falls prior to 4-9-
2007. In other words, the seized material itself shows that the lands were purchased
prior to formation of the assessee firm, in this background also, we fail to see how any
case can be made out of payment of "on money" by the assessee. There is yet
another convincing reason that in all the three years under appeal, there were no
sales affected by the assessee firm and the business of the assessee firm had not
even started, which is also evidenced by the profit & loss account of the three years
placed at page Nos. 309, 311 and 337 of the paper book. These profit & loss
accounts have remained undisputed by the assessing officer. We are inclined to
agree with the argument of learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that
when the source of revenue for the assessee was not there, it cannot be perceived
that the assessee could have earned any undisclosed income and made any
undisclosed investment. In CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (supra), on behalf of the
Revenue, it was argued that the word "may" in section 69 should be read as "shall"
against which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it was unable to agree. Hon'ble
Supreme Court thereafter held that the use of the word "may" clearly indicates that
the intention of Parliament in enacting section 69 was to confer a discretion on the
Income Tax Officer in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not
been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee and the
Income Tax Officer is not obliged to treat such source of investment as income in
every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be satisfactory.
The question whether the source of the investment should be treated as income or
not under section 69 has to be considered in the light of the facts of each case. In that
case, the Tribunal held that the discretion had not been properly exercised by the
Income Tax Officer and the AAC in taking into account the circumstances in which the
assessee was placed. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it did not find any error
in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. In Smt. Rajabai B Kadam v. Asstt. CIT
(supra) it was found that the assessee, who was a minor, was found carrying cash of
Rs. 1,18,500 by the police Department. The assessee thereafter died. In pursuance to
the reassessment notice, his mother filed return declaring nil income and she could
not explain the money which was recovered from her minor son. Co-ordinate Bench
held that there is no material on record to suggest that the minor could earn said
money just within a period of 2 months after leaving his school. It was in these facts
and circumstances that the addition was held to be not justified, relying upon the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (supra). If we
apply he ratio of aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that
when the source of income/revenue for the assessee was missing in the sense that
the business had not even started during all the three years and since during search,
nothing was found to establish that the assessee had any undisclosed income from
any other source, the discretion vested in the assessing officer should have been
exercised in favour of the assessee and the addition should not have been made. We
84
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

also observe that the assessing officer has not made any enquiry whatsoever from
different vendors of the lands and not even from the two persons named in the journal
entry, who, as per the journal entry, introduced their lands as capital contribution in
the partnership firm. In absence of any enquiry whatsoever, no addition could have
been made only on the basis of inference. It is a settled position of law that for making
addition under section 69, there has to be some material establishing actual
investment and therefore it is not justified to invoke the section merely on the basis of
inference.

8.1.1 In view of all the above reasons, we hold that the assessing officer was not
justified in making addition of Rs. 7,32,98,821 on account of the lands described on
page Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessment order. We, therefore, deem it proper to confirm
the findings of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue and hold that he was
justified in deleting the addition.

8.2. Next the addition of Rs. 2,73,44,233 comprised in the total addition of Rs.
10,06,43,054, we observe that the addition has been made by the assessing officer
on the basis of printout of tally data found in the pen drive seized from the residence
of Shri Kishore Atlani. The printout contains details of 32.68 acres of land and the
details have been reproduced as table 2 in the assessment order, on page Nos. 4 and
5. We observe that apart from this printout found during search, no other
corroborative material in the form of cash book ledger etc. was found during search. A
perusal of the details shows that the lands were purchased over a period of three
years, from different persons. It is not the case of assessing officer that details of
payment of individual lands were also found during search. What is to be noted is,
apart from the chart found, no other corroborative evidence was found during search.
It is not the case of assessing officer that any books of accounts and other details
supporting the entries in the printout were found during search or brought on record
during the assessment proceedings. It is not also the case of assessing officer that
any other details in respect of different lands like details of payment to the persons
etc. were found during search. Although it is stated that tally data was found in the
pen drive, corresponding books of accounts in such tally data were not found as there
is no reference of any such corroborative books in the assessment order. We agree
with the argument of learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that if any
unaccounted investment was made in respect of so many lands, from so many
persons that too spread over a period of three years, some other corroborative
material like account of the parties, details of individual payments etc. must also have
been maintained and found during search and in absence of any such corroborative
material, the contents of the pen drive/chart does not inspire confidence. It is also
worth noting that there is no finding of fact recorded by the assessing officer about
any unaccounted assets or unaccounted expenses or excess cash found during
search. Considering all the facts, it comes out that apart from the printout in the form
of chart, there is no other evidence in support of the addition made by assessing
officer and the chart, by itself, does not constitute any material/evidence to establish
85
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

unaccounted payment. As held by us earlier, for invoking section 69, the initial burden
is on the Revenue to establish that any unaccounted investment was made by the
assessee. This mandatory requirement of law is missing in the present case and so
the addition is not justified.

8.2.1 It is seen that the details of the lands are contained in the printout obtained from
the pen drive. When complete details were available with the assessing officer, the
assessing officer could have conducted independent enquiry from the vendors, which
also does not appear to have been done. On the contrary, the assessee submitted
affidavit of two vendors before the assessing officer and the assessing officer did not
even cross-examine them to verify the facts. In absence of any cross examination of
the deponents of the two affidavits, the contents of the affidavit become conclusive.

8.2.2 While considering the explanation of assessee about the entries in the pen drive
being fake, made by one Shri Ajay Atlani, it is noteworthy to consider that no enquiry
whatsoever appears to have been conducted either from the said Shri Ajay Atlani or
from Shri Kishore Atlani, from whose residence the pen drive was found. The
assessee explained the circumstances under which the entries were made in the tally
data in the pen drive by Shri Ajay Atlani. All these facts and assertions have remained
uncontroverted. The assessee explained some of the contents of the tally data in pen
drive to demonstrate that the entries found in pen drive are fake. Before us. during the
course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative of the assessee filed a
summarised form of his explanation in the form of a chart. The explanation given to
the assessing officer was to the effect that some of the entries in the pen drive do not
match with the entries in regular books in the sense that in some cases, payments are
mentioned to be made in cash in the pen drive while such payments are established
to have been made through cheque in the regular books; that land situated at
Labhandi is shown to have been sold to one Shri Suresh G. Atlani while actually, the
land was sold to one Shri Vijay Kumar Motwani through registered sale deed, copy
whereof has been placed at page Nos. 161 to 176 of paper book; that likewise, some
entries were found in the pen drive which mentions that the payments were made
through Bank of Baroda and State Bank of India, Pandri Tarai Branch while the
assessee explained that nobody in the group of assessee had any account in any
branch of Bank of Baroda and that the cheque number in respect of payment made
through State Bank of India did not relate to any bank account held by the concerned
person in that bank and similarly other many discrepancies were pointed out before
the assessing officer. All these explanations were rejected by the assessing officer
without giving any reason whatsoever. However, for rejecting the explanation of
assessee, it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to have given detailed reasons
for not accepting the same and in absence of any reason given, we do not approve
the action of the assessing officer."

3.29. Ld. CIT(A), while dismissing the appeal, has observed as under at page 65 of his Order:
86
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

"Further the conduct & absence of confirmation etc. from buyer suggests that the buyer
has accepted having made the unaccounted payment."

It is submitted that the conduct of the buyer or even his assumed acceptance can have
no adverse bearing on the Assessee Appellant. Conduct of the buyer can be in his self-
interest as has been explained i.e. to inflate the cost etc. Reliance in this regard is
placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Anil Jaggi
(supra) wherein admission of on money receipt by the seller before Settlement
Commission was held to be of no adverse effect as no evidence of payment by the buyer
was brought on record by the Department.

3.30. Electronic records relied upon without complying with the requirements of Information
Technology Act, 2000 read with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

3.30.i. Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Sections 65A and 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides the procedure for proving Electronic
Evidence. The provisions of section 65A elucidate that the electronic
records can be proved in evidence by the parties in accordance with the
provisions of Section 65B.

a. As per Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000,
"electronic record" means data, record or data generated, image or
sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form. Provisions
relating to admissibility of such evidence can be found in Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act. As per the said provision any
information contained in an electronic record which is printed in a
paper, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media
produced by a computer (computer output) shall be deemed to be
also any document and shall be admissible in any proceedings.
However, the same is subject to satisfaction of certain conditions
stipulated in sub-section 2 of Section 65B.

b. Relevant extracts of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is
reproduced hereunder:

"...65B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any
information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a
paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media
produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer
output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions
mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information
and computer in question and shall be admissible in any
proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as
87
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein
of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a
computer output shall be the following, namely :--
(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 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...." [Emphasis Supplied]

c. In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer [2014] SSC Online SC 732 (SC),
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of electronic devices, such
as CD, VCD, chip, when produced as digital evidence, the same is
required to be accompanied by certificate in terms of Section 65B of
Evidence Act at time of taking document. If that certificate is not
produced, secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record is
inadmissible. The court observed

"Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under
the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved
only in accordance with the procedure prescribed Under Section
65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic
record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary
evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be
noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any
information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a
paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media
produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if
the conditions mentioned Under Sub-section (2) are satisfied,
without further proof or production of the original. The very
admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is
88
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

called as! computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four
conditions Under Section 65B(2). " [Emphasis Supplied]

Apex Court held that these safeguards are taken to ensure the
'source and authenticity', which are 'the two hallmarks pertaining to
electronic record sought to be used as evidence'. The importance of
following this procedure was emphasized by the fact that electronic
records are more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition,
excision, etc. and in absence of these safeguards, the whole trial
based on proof of electronic records can lead to 'travesty of justice'.
Based on this reasoning, the court held

"Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section
65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the
genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to
Section 45A - opinion of examiner of electronic evidence. The
Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an
electronic record by oral evidence if requirements Under Section
65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now
stands in India. "

d. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-
20826 of 2017, 2407 and 3696 of 2018, vide its order dated
14.07.2020, confirmed its earlier view in the case of Anvar P.V. v.
P.K. Basheer (supra) apropos admissibility of electronic recorded as
evidence. Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

• A certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is
mandatory, and a condition precedent to the admissibility of
evidence by way of electronic record.

• The non-obstante language of 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, which is a special provision in this behalf.

• Requirement under Section 65B(4) is not necessary if the
original computer/laptop etc in which the data/information, relied
upon, itself is produced.

• Conditions under Sections 65B(2) and 65B(4) must be satisfied
cumulatively.
89
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

3.30.ii. The legal position as set out above and the judicial pronouncement
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have recently been followed by the
Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Polisetty
Somasundaram v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 153
taxmann.com 591 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.)/[2024] 115 ITR(T) 548
(Visakhapatnam - Trib.)[18-08-2023]. In the said case, the entire
assessment order was held to be invalid on the ground that the revenue
authorities failed to ensure compliance with the requirements of Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. For the sake of ready reference, the
relevant extracts of the said decision are set out below:

"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 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 pendrive 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"

3.30.iii. Attention is invited to the decision of Chuharmal (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC)
where the Supreme Court pointed out that although rigors of rule of
evidence contained in the Evidence Act were not applicable to the Income-
tax Act, but the general principles of evidence are applicable to income-tax
proceedings.

3.30.iv. Ld. AO has not recorded any satisfaction in the order that all the requisite
steps were taken by her to ensure that the data output of the PEN
Drives/Computer records, seized during the search on Gokul Kripa Group,
were analyzed on "as is" basis and there is no risk of it being tempered by
anyone.
90
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

3.31. In view of the facts discussed above along with the judicial pronouncements in this
regard it was incumbent upon the ld. AO to provide cross examination before using the
un-confronted statement against the Assessee Appellant as evidence. Specific request
for cross examination was made before ld. AO [PB 153, 180]. Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly
observed at page 36 of his Order that no such request made to ld. AO was brought to his
notice. Hence, in absence of cross examination the statements relied upon by the ld. AO
do not qualify as an evidence which could be used against Assessee Appellant. Reliance
is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber
Industries (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 of 2006) wherein it was held that "...not allowing
the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the
statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious
flaw which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principles of
natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected."

3.32. Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on number of judicial pronouncements. All these
decisions relied upon by ld. CIT (A) are distinguished on facts and law. A separate
"Distinguishing Note" in this regard is attached herewith.

In view of the above, the entire addition of the alleged on money receipt may please be deleted.

GROUND NO. 4: Invoking the provisions of section 115BBE

4.1. Ld. AO had invoked the provisions of section 115BBE treating the alleged on money on
sale of land as unexplained.

4.2. Ld. CIT(A) while deciding Ground No. 16 and Ground No. 18 held that provisions of
section 68 are not applicable. The source of on money receipt is sale of land and
accordingly ld. CIT(A) held that the entire gain including the on money is liable to be
taxed under the chapter of Capital Gains as part of the sale consideration of the property
sold by the Assessee Appellant (CIT(A) page 74- 1st para).

4.3. In spite of giving the above finding ld. CIT(A) dismissed Ground No. 17 observing as
under at para 16.1, page 74:

"16.1 The appellant/AR did not make submission on the Ground of Appeal No. 17. The
same is treated as not pressed. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed."

4.4. It is submitted that Ground No. 16 before the ld. CIT(A) reproduced by him at page 72
contained the ground of invoking the provisions of section 115BBE. At page 73 the
submissions in respect of section 115BBE were made before ld. CIT(A) which have been
reproduced by him at page 73, para 3.2.19. Thus, in spite of specific submissions and
specific ground ld. CIT(A) has held that no submissions were made. It is contradictory
that Ground No. 16 having been allowed which contained challenge to invoking the
91
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

provisions of section 115BBE, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed Ground No. 17 which also had
challenged invoking the provisions of section 115BBE.

4.5. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that once ld. CIT(A) has admitted that the
source is sale of land and has held that section 68 is not applicable there remains no
reason for upholding the invoking of the provisions of section 115BBE.

In view of the above, the invoking of the provisions of section 115BBE may please be quashed.

8. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance

was placed on the following evidence, records and decisions:

S. No. Particulars Page No.
1. Copy of Sale Deed dated 05.11.2015 amounting to Rs. 1,41,60,000/- 1-12
2. Copy of Sale Deed dated 05.11.2015 amounting to Rs. 6,69,60,000/- 13-26
3. Copy of Sale Deed dated 04.01.2016 amounting to Rs. 9,69,60,000/- 27-40
4. Copy of Sale Deed dated 03.08.2016 amounting to Rs. 1,10,40,000/- 41-62
5. Copy of Sale Deed dated 03.08.2016 amounting to Rs. 10,63,20,000/- 63-73
6. Copy of Sale Deed dated 06.06.2016 amounting to Rs. 98,40,000/- 74-83
7. Copy of Sale Deed dated 06.06.2016 amounting to Rs. 8,35,20,000/- 84-115
8. Written Submissions dated 26.12.2024 before ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2016-
116-125
17, 2017-18 and 2018-19
9. Written Submissions dated 06.01.2025 before the ld. CIT(A) for A.Y.
2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 126
i. Submissions before the ld. AO:
A.Y. 2016-17 dated:

02.01.2024
127
12.01.2024
128-130
14.03.2024
131-133
A.Y. 2017-18 dated:

02.01.2024
134
22.01.2024
135-153
92
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

14.03.2024
154-160
A.Y. 2018-19 dated:

02.01.2014
161
22.01.2024
162-181
14.03.2024
182-185
10. Written Submissions dated 13.01.2025 before ld. CIT(A) regarding
186, 187
genuineness of sale transactions
11. Approval u/s 153D dated 23.03.2024
i. A.Y. 2016-17
ii. A.Y. 2017-18 188, 189
iii. A.Y. 2018-19
iv. A.Y. 2015-16, 2019-20, 2020-21 190, 191
192, 193
194, 195
12. Reopened and abated assessment for A.Y. 2017-18
i. Notice u/s 148 dated 29.07.2022
ii. Order u/s 148A(d) dated 29.07.2022 196, 197
iii. Approval u/s 151 dated 21.04.2021
198-211
212-220
13. Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dated 09.08.2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 221-231

S. No. Particulars Pg. No.
1. Copy of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Sunil Kumar
Sharma [2024] 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) dismissing the SLP
1,2

2. Copy of order of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT v. Sunil
Kumar Sharma [2024] 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) 3-28

3. Copy of order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware
Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay)
29-73

4. Copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in case of Shri Prakash
Chand Kothari in ITA Nos. 1190/JP/2019; 1298/JP/2019; & 66/JP/2020
74-151

5. Copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench, in case of Shri Adit Rathi v.
ITO in ITA No. 411/PUN.2020 152-155
93
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

9. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written

submission so filed vehemently argued that the karta of the assessee's

HUF died on 26.05.2021. The payment was made was after the registration

of the document as is evident from 3 of the assessment order wherein the

AO tabulated the date of sale agreement. Thus, preponderance of

probability goes in favour of the assessee if there is involvement of cash

transaction no prudent seller will make the sale deed before the receipt of

the cash and the transaction as alleged to have been recorded as cash

receipt by the assessee is after the date of sale and therefore, the revenue

has to appreciate this fact. Even in the search so conducted wherein this

alleged records have been found as recorded in the computer cannot be

relied upon without having in possession of any incriminating documents for

the payment of cash to the assessee. The ld. AO made the estimation while

making the addition in the hands of the assessee and that too without

placing any concreate evidence of exact amount paid to the assessee.

Assessee is a seller, and it was as recorded that four different person were

paying to the assessee is also nothing but guess work and for that also no

corroborative evidence from the possession of four different payer of the

alleged cash to the assessee. There is no direct evidence as to receipt of

the alleged payment in cash by the assessee, merely the same is written in
94
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

the excel sheet the payment that is recorded after the date of document is

nothing but the unexplained expenditure on the said land by that Gokul

Krupa Group and not by the assessee. It is hardly a common sense that a

purchaser of the property gives payment to the seller after the final sale

deed is executed and possession were given to the purchaser of the

property. The ld. AO noted that the cash payment was received by the

assessee over period of 30 months and that too after the date of final sale

deed executed by the assessee this fact against the business practices. No

prudent businessmen will pay in cash after the deed is executed in his / her

name and therefore, revenue without bringing any corroborative evidence

merely based on the excel sheet made the addition [ 304 occasions by four

different persons. Not only that, as is evident from the table that on one

date all person directors separately pays ( Sr No. 5,8,19 & 29) and that too

different amount which is normally not plausible. This itself suggests that

the document is deaf and dump and may be prepared by that assessee to

for their other expenditure or to inflate and has no relation with the

transaction already over] which is contrary to the facts and against the

provision of law. To drive home to this contention, he relied upon the

decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Sunil Kumar

Sharma [ 159 taxmann.com 179(Karnataka) ]. The ld. AR of the assessee
95
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

also submitted that the person who made these averments were not

allowed to be cross examined and thereby he relied upon the land mark

decision of Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timbers. He vehemently

submitted that once the sale deed is executed it is not possible to receive

the money on a date subsequent to that date and that too in cash no body

will pay cash and the preponderance of probability goes into favour of the

assessee as decided in the case of Sumati Dayal and thereby there is no

justification of making any addition in the hands of the assessee based on

that excel sheet. Not only that during the search no corroborative evidence

of having paid cash was found at any of the alleged four persons giving

money to the assessee. The assessee has also challenged the reliance on

such extracts and print outs of the excel sheets stating that the AO has not

complied with the provision of section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act,

1872 and no satisfaction has been recorded by the AO that the output

records were analysed on "as is" basis by the Department and there was no

risk of the data being tempered by anyone and which has been relied upon

by the ld.AO.

The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that Hon'ble Bombay High

Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lavanya Land Private Limited 297 CTR 204

held that if the entries on the loose sheet of paper, found during search, are
96
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

not corroborated by any other evidence, no addition can be made. Here

also there was not corroborative evidence were placed on record and that

too after the sale document it has been alleged to have paid cash to the

assessee by the purchaser of the property. Even the digital data relied upon

were not supported by the required certification by the revenue. As regards

the judgement relied upon by the revenue the ld. AR of the assessee has

filed a detailed distinguishing note on all the judgement relied upon by the

revenue.

10. 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). The ld. DR also filed a case law compilation in

support of the contention so raised the list of case law relied upon are as

under ;

Compilation of Case Law(s)

S.No. Particulars Page no.

1. [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC)/[1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC)/[1995] 125 CTR 124
(SC)[28-03- 1995] [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF 1-5
INDIA Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner of Income-tax* S.C. AGRAWAL,
SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ. CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
1344-45 OF 1977 MARCH 28, 1995
2. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 313 (Madhya Pradesh)/[2019] 265 Taxman 81 6-10
(Madhya Pradesh) (MAG)[22-03-2018] INCOME TAX [2019] 107
taxmann.com 313 (Madhya Pradesh) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH Vijay Jain v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ujjain*
-
P.K. JAISWAL AND VIRENDER SINGH, JJ. IT APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2017
MARCH 22, 2018
97
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

3. [1998] 65 ITD 380 (Bombay)[28-02-1995] [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM) IN THE 11-35
ITAT BOMBAY BENCH 'E' GTC Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner
of Income-tax P.J. GORADIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND M.K.
CHATURVEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT APPEAL NOS. 5996 (BOM.) OF
1993 AND 1055 (BOM.) OF 1994 [ASSESSMENT YEARS 1984-85 AND
1985-86] FEBRUARY 28, 1995
4. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 341 (Bombay)/[2024] 461 ITR 483 36-68
(Bombay) [11 -01 -2024] INCOME TAX [2024] 158 taxmann.com 341
(Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Income-tax* G.S. KULKARNI AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
IT APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2002t JANUARY 11, 2024
5. [2025] 174 taxmann.com 110 (Madras) [30-04-2025] [2025] 174 69-78
taxmann.com 110 (Madras) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Assistant
Commissioner of Income-tax V.Vetrivel Minerals (VV Minerals)*
G.R. SWAMINATHAN AND M. JOTHIRAMAN, JJ. WA(MD)NOS. 119 TO
123 OF 2022
6. [2025] 173 taxmann.com 955 (Patna) [25-04-2025] [2025] 173 79-88 ,
taxmann.com 955 (Patna) HIGH COURT OF PATNA Shree Shakambhari
Udyog Partnership Firm V. Commissioner of Income-tax* RAJEEV
RANJAN PRASAD AND SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ. CIVIL WRIT
JURISDICTION CASE NOS. 7244, 16693, 16697 AND 17742 OF 2022
APRIL 25, 2025 Section 69A, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act,
1961 Unexplained

As regards the apprehension on the digital data ld. DR submitted that

there is well laid down procedure and protocols are strictly followed by the

department regarding seized documents and it is unlikely that the search

data can be tempered with by any officials of Revenue and once the

information has been received from another assessing officer there is a

presumption that such data and information is shared on "as is" basis and

therefore, where there is no basis for raising any suspicion in the mind of

the Assessing Officer, no further action has been taken regarding verifying

the authencity of the data so received any recording any satisfaction in this

regard. It was accordingly submitted that it is merely an apprehension on
98
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

the part of the assessee and the same cannot be a basis for not relying on

the data collected and received by the Assessing Officer which forms part

of the assessment records.

The ld. DR referring to the details mentioned in the table given in

page 3 of the assessment submitted that the assessee has sold the land to

the person searched for the group entity and thereby in that process

evidence of having been paid to the assessee was recorded in excel sheet

found. While search incriminating documents relating to the assessee were

found and seized. It was found that assessee has entered unaccounted

financial transaction with M/s Gokul Kripa Group. In that group concern

premises it was found that the group accepts money (in cash) on sales of

its plots in all its ongoing projects. Gokul Kripa Group made payments in

cash out of books while purchasing the land for its projects. These facts

were accepted in the statement recorded at the time of search. The

assessee, including his family members, also sold their land to the Group.

That Group has developed two schemes, namely Royal Residency Phase-1

and Phase -2 in Sanganer Tehsil, Jaipur that scheme land was purchased

from the assessee and its family members. While search at one of the

business premises of GokulKripa Group at 1, Shivshanker Colony, near

mansarover Metro Station, Jaipur a computer (Destop PC) was found (PC-
99
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

3). On examination of this computer, an excel sheet bearing name excel

sheet bearing name '1. Pay-Exp' was found. The path of the excel sheet is

GokulKripa Group 1st Floor Accounts PC-3\image\E HAPPY Prakash Sir

Scheme\1. Pay-Exp.xlsx and the hash value of the image of this PC was

0d848d309d19ac1bobbc523aod295964. This excel sheet contains entries

related to purchase of land for development of various scheme. The entries

of cheque payment as well as cash payment along with names of the party

and dates are duly recorded in the excel sheet. Further the bifurcation of

payment made by the key persons namely Shri Sumer Singh Saini (SSS),

Shri Phool Chand Saini (PCS) Shri Rajesh Kumar (RK) and Shri Ganga

Singh Tanwar (GST) is also recorded in this excel sheet. The extracts of

excel sheet having name 1 Pay Exp and Sheet name RR reflects payment

to the assessee including others in cash also, apart from cheque payments.

The sheets were reproduced in the assessment order by the ld. AO from

page 4 to 14. Ld. AO from that excel sheet noted that M/s. Gokul Kripa

Colonisers & Developers P. Ltd. [GKCDPL] developed two schemes

namely Royal Residency Phase I and II. Ld. AO prepared a table relating to

the entries of the assessee and their family members at page 14 to 18

wherein details of cheque payment and cash payments were recorded and

were compared with the ledger account of the assessee in the books of
100
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

GKCDPL. The ld. AO based on that comparison made a table wherein he

noted that the entries noted in excel sheet is exactly the same as recorded

in the ledger so far as it relates to the payment by an account payee

cheque and thereby, he tried to establish the authenticity and correctness of

the transaction recorded in the excel sheet. In that process there is no lapse

on the part of the ld. AO. As regards the contention of the ld. AR of the

assessee that excel is nothing but deaf and dump document on that aspect

of the matter ld. DR submitted that the said document was correlated with

the payment already recorded in the ledger account so far as it relates to

the cheque payment and thereby the cash payment recorded against the

assessee how can be considered as deaf and dump when these payments

is recorded in the same sheet wherein the cheque payment is recorded.

The ld. DR then demonstrated instance of having cheque payment

appearing in that excel sheet. The ld. DR referring the page 23 of the

assessment wherein the seized diary page was extracted it tally with the

payment cash to the assessee and thereby he submitted that the entries

recorded in the excel sheet are correct and thereby he supported the

finding recorded in the orders of the lower authority. As submitted by the

searched person that the entries made in the excel sheet were recorded

after removing "00" and thereby the ld. AO considering that facts already
101
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

confronted to the assessee made by the addition after providing all the

material to the assessee. Thus, the addition is based on the document and

evidence found during the search and therefore, the addition is fully

supported by the material unearth which are incriminating in nature and

thereby the addition should be sustained. As regards the contention of the

ld. AR of the assessee that the payments have been shown to inflate the

expenditure of the searched party on that ld. DR submitted that one will

inflate and create incriminating document without bring the correct facts and

when it was alleged to have been claimed why they will inflate when they

have also not claimed that money being out of books. Opportunity of cross

examination was not required as the addition is not based only on

statement it is supported by an evidence where the details are matching

with the transaction of the assessee and thereby that plea of the assessee

is not maintainable as the case of law of Andaman Timber was merely

based on the statement and here the addition is based on the evidence

found in the search. To support this argument he relied upon the decision of

co-ordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai benches in the case of GTC Industries

Ltd. Vs. ACIT 65 ITD 380(Bom). The judicial decision relied upon by the

assessee in the case of DCIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma being not of the

Jurisdictional High Court, the same cannot be considered. Therefore, he
102
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

submitted that considering the decision of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 80 Taxman

89 the preponderance of probability goes in favour of the revenue and

thereby the addition made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be

upheld. On the issue of 153D approval the ld. DR vehemently argued that

the considering the extensive guideline the same cannot be considered as

mechanical approval. In respect of the AY 2017-18 the additional ground

not to be considered as the same is raised for the first time.

11. In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. DR

did not bring any evidence as to whether the assessee in fact accepted this

payment made to the assessee and they have submitted any evidence

which not submitted in the proceeding before the lower authorities. Not only

that it is undisputed fact that the payments alleged to have been made in

the cash was found to be recorded on a date after the date of registration of

the impugned property by the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee also

submitted that in the statement so relied upon by the revenue the person

searched has not referred the name of the assessee specifically. The fact

that the payment recorded in that sheet is after the date of document is not

controverted. The karta of the assessee being doctor, how the cash is

collected by him on so many days who handed over and to whom all this
103
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

aspect of the matter has not been clarified in the statement so relied upon.

AO page 33 merely the new land is written not the name of the assessee

was written and therefore, linking that with the excel sheet is self-serving of

their out of books and not of the assessee. So far as the legal precedent

relied upon by revenue, he filed a distinguishing note on the judgement

relied upon by revenue and the said note reads as follows;

Distinguishing the case laws relied upon by the ld. CIT(A)

1. SUMATI DAYAL v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 48]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1995), the Supreme Court
addressed a case where the assessee claimed to have won substantial amounts
from horse races (Rs. 3,11,831 in assessment year 1971-72 and Rs. 93,500 in
assessment year 1972-73). The assessee showed these amounts in her capital
accounts but did not record any corresponding expenditure.

The legal issue centered on the application of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,
which places the burden on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and
source of any sum credited in their books. The Court emphasized that while the
burden initially lies on the department to prove a receipt is taxable income,
Section 68 creates a rebuttable presumption against the assessee when
unexplained credits appear in their books.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. The assessee claimed to
have started participating in horse races only towards the end of 1969 with no
prior experience 2. She claimed to have won 16 jackpots and several trebles
within a short period 3. She stated she purchased tickets based on combinations
advised by her husband 4. The assessee provided certificates from racing clubs
and crossed cheques as evidence.
104
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

The Supreme Court applied the "test of human probabilities" to evaluate the
assessee's explanation. The Court found that the assessee's extraordinary
success despite her inexperience, the pattern of winnings, and the absence of
recorded expenditure made her explanation implausible. The Court concluded
that the assessee had likely purchased winning tickets after the races using
unaccounted money, rather than legitimately winning the races.

The Court established the important principle that "apparent must be considered
real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the
real" and that taxing authorities are entitled to examine surrounding
circumstances to determine reality.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Nature of Transaction and Evidence: In Sumati Dayal, the assessee
herself recorded the disputed amounts in her own books of account as capital
receipts, claiming they were race winnings. In contrast, Anshu Sahai HUF never
recorded any alleged cash receipts in its books, nor were any such entries found
in the HUF's possession. The disputed entries were found exclusively in digital
data seized from a third party (Gokul Kripa Group).

ii. Source of Evidence and Corroboration: In Sumati Dayal, the assessee's
own sworn statements and conduct (claiming extraordinary success despite
inexperience) contradicted her explanation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
assessee has consistently denied receiving any cash payments, and there is no
contradictory conduct or statement from the assessee. The only evidence is
digital data found from a third party without any corroboration.

iii. Application of "Test of Human Probabilities": In Sumati Dayal, the test of
human probabilities worked against the assessee, as it was improbable that a
novice could win so many jackpots. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the test of
human probabilities actually supports the assessee's position - it defies business
logic that a prudent seller would transfer property ownership through registered
sale deeds without receiving full payment, especially when the alleged cash
payments continued for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed.

iv. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Sumati Dayal, the timing of the alleged
winnings raised suspicion. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the chronology of events
strongly supports the assessee's position - the last sale deed was executed on
04.08.2016, whereas the last alleged cash payment was supposedly received as
late as 18.03.2018, a gap of about 19 months after legal ownership had already
105
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

transferred.

v. Direct vs. Indirect Evidence: In Sumati Dayal, there was direct evidence
linking the assessee to the receipts (certificates from racing clubs, crossed
cheques). In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no direct evidence connecting the
assessee to the alleged cash payments - the Excel sheet data is uncorroborated,
and in many instances, the assessee's name does not even appear in the
entries.

vi. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Sumati Dayal, the evidence was legally
obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records
were relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

vii. Contradictions in Evidence: In Sumati Dayal, the evidence was internally
consistent but implausible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data
contains internal contradictions - payments in multiples of hundreds (which is
unusual for large cash transactions) and multiple directors making payments on
the same dates, which defies normal business practice.

viii. Legal Documentation: In Sumati Dayal, there was no legal documentation
contradicting the department's position. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there are
duly registered sale deeds specifying the consideration amount, and as per
Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, no evidence can be admitted to
contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of a written document.

2. DURGA PRASAD MORE v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 13, 59]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Durga Prasad More v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Supreme Court
addressed a case concerning the genuineness of gift deeds executed in favor of
the assessee's minor children. The assessee claimed to have received
substantial gifts from his father-in-law and brother-in-law, which were
subsequently gifted to his minor children.

The legal issue centered on whether the Income Tax authorities could look
beyond the apparent state of affairs as presented in formal documents (gift
deeds) to determine the true nature of transactions. The Court had to decide
106
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

whether the department could disregard legally executed gift deeds when
surrounding circumstances indicated they might not represent the true nature of
transactions.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. The assessee was a man
of modest means before the alleged gifts 2. The purported donors (father-in-law
and brother-in-law) had limited financial capacity to make such substantial gifts 3.
The assessee's lifestyle and financial position improved dramatically after the
alleged gifts 4. Despite claiming the gifts were from relatives, the assessee
maintained control over the gifted assets.

The Supreme Court established the principle that tax authorities are entitled to
pierce the veil of apparent transactions to examine their true nature. The Court
famously stated that "apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there
are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real" and that the matter must
be considered by applying the test of human probabilities.

The Court concluded that the gift deeds, despite being legally executed
documents, did not represent genuine transactions based on the surrounding
circumstances and the test of human probabilities.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Nature of Documentation and Control: In Durga Prasad More, the
assessee produced gift deeds that were executed by him and remained under his
control, while still maintaining effective control over the allegedly gifted assets. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the disputed transactions involve registered sale deeds
where legal ownership and control were completely transferred to the buyer, with
no evidence of continued control by the assessee over the sold properties.

ii. Source and Reliability of Evidence: In Durga Prasad More, the evidence
(gift deeds) was created by the assessee himself and the investigation revealed
inconsistencies in the financial capacity of the alleged donors. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the only evidence of alleged cash payments is digital data found
from a third party (Gokul Kripa Group), not created by or found in possession of
the assessee, with no investigation into the financial capacity of the assessee to
verify whether such additional receipts were plausible.

iii. Lifestyle and Financial Inconsistencies: In Durga Prasad More, there was
clear evidence of the assessee's improved lifestyle and financial position
inconsistent with declared income. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no
107
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

evidence presented by the department of any lifestyle or financial position of the
assessee inconsistent with the declared income or suggesting receipt of
additional undisclosed cash.

iv. Contradictory Conduct: In Durga Prasad More, the assessee's conduct
(maintaining control over allegedly gifted assets) contradicted his claims. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no contradictory conduct - the assessee
consistently denied receiving any cash payments, and there is no evidence of the
assessee acting in a manner suggesting receipt of additional cash.

v. Application of "Test of Human Probabilities": In Durga Prasad More, the
test of human probabilities worked against the assessee, as it was improbable
that persons of limited means would make substantial gifts. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the test of human probabilities supports the assessee's position - it
defies business logic that a prudent seller would transfer property ownership
through registered sale deeds without receiving full payment, especially when the
alleged cash payments continued for 19 months after the registration of the last
sale deed.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Durga Prasad More, the timing of the
alleged gifts coincided with the assessee's need to explain his improved financial
position. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the chronology of events contradicts the
department's position - the last sale deed was executed on 04.08.2016, whereas
the last alleged cash payment was supposedly received as late as 18.03.2018, a
gap of about 19 months after legal ownership had already transferred.

vii. Corroborating Evidence: In Durga Prasad More, there was corroborating
evidence against the assessee's claims, including the financial incapacity of the
alleged donors. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no corroborating evidence
supporting the allegation of cash payments - the Excel sheet data stands alone
without any supporting documentation, witness statements, or financial trail.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Durga Prasad More, the evidence was
legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic
records were relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper
certification.

3. KANWAR NATWAR SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 11, 27, 35, 47]
108
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Kanwar Natwar Singh v. Director of Enforcement [2010] 13 SCC 255, the Supreme
Court addressed a case arising from the Oil-for-Food Programme scandal. The case
involved allegations that Natwar Singh, a former External Affairs Minister, and his son
Jagat Singh had received illegal kickbacks from oil contracts with Iraq.

The legal issues centered on the evidentiary standards in proceedings under the Foreign
Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in
establishing financial impropriety. The Court had to determine whether documentary
evidence showing financial transactions through banking channels, though
circumstantial, could form the basis for proceedings under FEMA.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. There was documentary
evidence of financial transactions through banking channels 2. Multiple corroborating
documents from different sources established a chain of transactions 3. The
respondents' names appeared in official UN Volcker Committee Report 4. There was
evidence of meetings between the respondents and Iraqi officials 5. Banking records
showed clear money trails connecting the parties involved

The Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence, when forming a complete chain
without gaps, can be the basis for establishing violations of financial laws. The Court
emphasized that in cases of financial impropriety, direct evidence is often not available,
and authorities must rely on documentary evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
from established facts.

The Court also reaffirmed that when documentary evidence establishes a prima facie
case, the burden shifts to the accused to provide a satisfactory explanation for the
suspicious transactions.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Nature and Quality of Evidence: In Kanwar Natwar Singh's case, there
was documentary evidence from multiple independent and official sources,
including banking records, the UN Volcker Committee Report, and diplomatic
communications. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the only evidence is an Excel
sheet found in digital data seized from a third party, without any corroboration
from independent sources or official records.

ii. Financial Trail and Banking Evidence: In Kanwar Natwar Singh's case,
there was a clear money trail through banking channels that could be traced and
verified. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no banking evidence, no money
trail, and no financial records showing the movement of the alleged cash
109
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

payments.

iii. Corroboration from Multiple Sources: In Kanwar Natwar Singh's case, the
evidence was corroborated by multiple independent sources, including
international organizations. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data
stands alone without any corroboration from any independent source.

iv. Official Recognition of Transactions: In Kanwar Natwar Singh's case, the
transactions were officially recognized in the UN Volcker Committee Report. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no official recognition of the alleged cash
transactions in any government or regulatory record.

v. Completeness of Circumstantial Evidence Chain: In Kanwar Natwar
Singh's case, the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain without gaps.
In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there are significant gaps in the alleged evidence -
no proof of cash withdrawal by the payer, no proof of cash receipt by the
assessee, and no evidence of subsequent use or deposit of the alleged cash by
the assessee.

vi. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Kanwar Natwar Singh's case,
the documentary evidence did not contradict any legally executed documents. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally
executed and registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the
Evidence Act cannot be contradicted by external evidence.

vii. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Kanwar Natwar Singh's case, the
timing of financial transactions aligned with the meetings and contracts under
investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the chronology contradicts the
department's position - the alleged cash payments continued for 19 months after
the registration of the last sale deed, which defies business logic.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Kanwar Natwar Singh's case, the
evidence was legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
electronic records were relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, making them legally inadmissible without
proper certification.

4. BHAGWAT PRASAD v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 13, 59]
110
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Bhagwat Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Supreme Court addressed a
case concerning the genuineness of certain transactions claimed by the assessee. The
assessee had claimed that certain amounts represented loans received from various
individuals, but the tax authorities disputed the genuineness of these transactions.

The legal issue centered on the burden of proof in cases where an assessee claims
certain amounts as loans or legitimate transactions. The Court had to determine whether
the Income Tax authorities could reject the assessee's explanation when documentary
evidence (such as loan agreements or receipts) existed but appeared suspicious in light
of surrounding circumstances.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. The assessee produced loan
documents and receipts to support his claim 2. The alleged lenders were either not
traceable or denied having provided the loans when investigated 3. The assessee could
not provide convincing evidence about the creditworthiness of the alleged lenders 4.
There were inconsistencies in the documentation and the explanations provided by the
assessee

The Supreme Court held that while the burden initially lies on the tax authorities to prove
that a receipt is income, once they establish a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the
assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The Court emphasized that tax
authorities are entitled to look beyond the apparent state of affairs and examine the true
nature of transactions based on surrounding circumstances and human probabilities.

The Court concluded that mere production of documents is not sufficient if they do not
inspire confidence when viewed in light of surrounding circumstances and the test of
human probabilities.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Nature of Disputed Transactions: In Bhagwat Prasad's case, the assessee
claimed certain amounts as loans received, which if genuine would not be taxable. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the dispute is not about the characterization of a receipt (the
assessee denies receiving any cash payments at all), but about whether additional
undisclosed consideration was received for property sales beyond what was stated in
registered sale deeds.

ii. Source and Creation of Evidence: In Bhagwat Prasad's case, the assessee
himself produced the documentary evidence (loan documents) which was found to be
suspicious. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the only evidence is digital data found from a
third party (Gokul Kripa Group), not created by or found in possession of the assessee.
111
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

iii. Verification of Counterparties: In Bhagwat Prasad's case, the tax authorities
investigated and found that the alleged lenders were either not traceable or denied the
transactions. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities
attempted to verify the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group
who supposedly made these payments, despite having access to them during and after
the search.

iv. Burden of Proof Dynamics: In Bhagwat Prasad's case, the assessee was
attempting to prove that certain receipts were non-taxable loans rather than income. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the department is attempting to prove that the assessee
received additional consideration not disclosed in registered documents, without any
evidence of such receipts in the assessee's possession or books.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Bhagwat Prasad's case, there were
no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed and
registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot be
contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Bhagwat Prasad's case, the timing of the
alleged loans aligned with the assessee's need for funds. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case,
the chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments
continued for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies
business logic and normal commercial practice.

vii. Corroborating Evidence: In Bhagwat Prasad's case, the department had
corroborating evidence against the assessee's claims, including statements from alleged
lenders denying the transactions. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no corroborating
evidence supporting the allegation of cash payments - the Excel sheet data stands alone
without any supporting documentation, witness statements, or financial trail.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Bhagwat Prasad's case, the evidence was
legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were
relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

5. VISHWANATH PRASAD BHAGWATI PRASAD v. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 13, 59]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Vishwanath Prasad Bhagwati Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court
addressed a case concerning the genuineness of certain business transactions claimed
112
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

by the assessee. The assessee, a partnership firm, had claimed certain transactions as
legitimate business dealings, but the tax authorities disputed their authenticity based on
surrounding circumstances.

The legal issue centered on whether the Income Tax authorities could look beyond
formal documentation to determine the true nature of business transactions. The Court
had to decide whether the department could disregard apparently regular business
records when other evidence suggested they might not reflect actual transactions.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. The assessee produced
business records showing the disputed transactions 2. Investigation revealed that many
of the parties to these transactions were either non-existent or denied having engaged in
such dealings 3. The pattern and timing of the transactions appeared suspicious and
contrived 4. The assessee could not provide satisfactory explanations for discrepancies
when questioned

The Court established that tax authorities are not bound by the apparent state of
affairs as presented in formal business records. The Court emphasized that when
the surrounding circumstances and human probabilities suggest that the
documented transactions do not reflect reality, the authorities are entitled to draw
appropriate inferences.

The Court concluded that the burden of proving the genuineness of transactions shifts to
the assessee when the tax authorities establish reasonable grounds to doubt their
authenticity, and mere production of formal documentation is insufficient if it fails to
withstand scrutiny in light of other evidence.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Nature and Source of Evidence: In Vishwanath Prasad's case, the disputed
transactions were recorded in the assessee's own business records, which were found
to be suspicious. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged cash payments were not
recorded in any books maintained by the assessee but were found exclusively in digital
data seized from a third party (Gokul Kripa Group).

ii. Investigation of Counterparties: In Vishwanath Prasad's case, the tax authorities
conducted a thorough investigation and found that many of the alleged business
partners either did not exist or denied the transactions. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case,
there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify the alleged cash
payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly made these
payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

iii. Contradictory Statements: In Vishwanath Prasad's case, the assessee provided
inconsistent explanations when questioned about the transactions. In Anshu Sahai
113
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

HUF's case, the assessee has consistently denied receiving any cash payments, and
there are no contradictory statements from the assessee.

iv. Legal Documentation: In Vishwanath Prasad's case, there were no legally
executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In Anshu Sahai HUF's
case, there are duly registered sale deeds specifying the consideration amount, and as
per Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, no evidence can be admitted to contradict,
vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of a written document.

v. Application of "Test of Human Probabilities": In Vishwanath Prasad's case, the
test of human probabilities worked against the assessee, as the pattern and timing of
transactions appeared contrived. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the test of human
probabilities supports the assessee's position - it defies business logic that a prudent
seller would transfer property ownership through registered sale deeds without receiving
full payment, especially when the alleged cash payments continued for 19 months after
the registration of the last sale deed.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Vishwanath Prasad's case, the suspicious
timing of transactions was evidence against the assessee. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case,
the chronology of events strongly supports the assessee's position - the last sale deed
was executed on 04.08.2016, whereas the last alleged cash payment was supposedly
received as late as 18.03.2018, a gap of about 19 months after legal ownership had
already transferred.

vii. Corroborating Evidence: In Vishwanath Prasad's case, there was corroborating
evidence against the assessee's claims, including statements from alleged business
partners. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no corroborating evidence supporting the
allegation of cash payments - the Excel sheet data stands alone without any supporting
documentation, witness statements, or financial trail.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Vishwanath Prasad's case, the evidence was
legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were
relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

6. RAMESHWAR LAL MALI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Rameshwar Lal Mali v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case
concerning unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee
claimed these deposits represented business receipts, but the tax authorities disputed
this explanation based on the pattern of deposits and lack of supporting evidence.
114
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

The legal issue centered on the burden of proof when unexplained bank deposits are
discovered. The Court had to determine whether the assessee's explanation could be
rejected when it was not supported by concrete evidence, despite the existence of formal
banking records showing the deposits.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. The assessee had
substantial cash deposits in his bank account that did not align with his declared
business activities 2. The pattern of deposits appeared irregular and inconsistent
with normal business transactions 3. The assessee could not produce supporting
documentation such as bills, invoices, or receipts for the alleged business
transactions 4. When questioned, the assessee provided vague and inconsistent
explanations about the source of funds

The Court held that when unexplained bank deposits are discovered, the initial burden is
on the assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation supported by evidence. The Court
emphasized that mere assertions without corroborating evidence are insufficient,
especially when the pattern of transactions does not align with normal business
practices.

The Court concluded that the Income Tax authorities were justified in treating the
unexplained deposits as income from undisclosed sources when the assessee failed to
discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of his explanation.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Nature of Evidence: In Rameshwar Lal Mali's case, there was direct evidence of
cash deposits in the assessee's own bank account, which the assessee acknowledged
but failed to explain satisfactorily. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence of
any cash receipts or deposits in the assessee's accounts - the only evidence is digital
data found from a third party, which the assessee has consistently denied.

ii. Acknowledgment vs. Denial: In Rameshwar Lal Mali's case, the assessee
acknowledged the deposits but claimed they were from legitimate business sources. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has categorically denied receiving any cash
payments beyond what was declared in the registered sale deeds.

iii. Banking Trail vs. No Financial Evidence: In Rameshwar Lal Mali's case, there
was a clear banking trail showing the deposits in the assessee's account. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, there is no banking evidence, no money trail, and no financial records
showing the receipt or subsequent use of the alleged cash payments.

iv. Burden of Proof Dynamics: In Rameshwar Lal Mali's case, the burden was on the
assessee to explain deposits that were undisputedly received by him. In Anshu Sahai
115
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

HUF's case, the department is attempting to prove that the assessee received additional
consideration not disclosed in registered documents, without any evidence of such
receipts in the assessee's possession or books.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Rameshwar Lal Mali's case, there
were no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed
and registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot
be contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Rameshwar Lal Mali's case, the timing of the
deposits aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments continued
for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies business logic and
normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation of Source: In Rameshwar Lal Mali's case, the department
investigated the alleged sources of the deposits and found them to be non-existent or
inadequate. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities
attempted to verify the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group
who supposedly made these payments, despite having access to them during and after
the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Rameshwar Lal Mali's case, the evidence was
legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were
relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

7. DEVASAHAYA NADAR v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Devasahaya Nadar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case
concerning unexplained investments and assets discovered during the course of income
tax proceedings. The assessee claimed these investments were made from legitimate
sources, but the tax authorities disputed this explanation due to lack of supporting
evidence.

The legal issue centered on the burden of proof when unexplained investments are
discovered. The Court had to determine whether the assessee's explanation could be
rejected when it was not supported by concrete evidence, and whether the tax
authorities could make additions based on circumstantial evidence.
116
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. The assessee had made
substantial investments that were disproportionate to his declared income 2. When
questioned, the assessee provided explanations that lacked documentary support 3. The
pattern of investments did not align with the assessee's financial profile 4. There were
inconsistencies in the assessee's statements regarding the source of funds

The Court held that when unexplained investments are discovered, the burden is on the
assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation supported by evidence. The Court
emphasized that mere assertions without corroborating evidence are insufficient,
especially when the investments are substantial and inconsistent with the assessee's
declared income.

The Court concluded that the Income Tax authorities were justified in treating the
unexplained investments as income from undisclosed sources when the assessee failed
to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of his explanation.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Nature of Evidence: In Devasahaya Nadar's case, there was direct evidence of
investments made by the assessee, which the assessee acknowledged but failed to
explain satisfactorily. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence of any
unexplained investments or assets - the only evidence is digital data found from a third
party, which the assessee has consistently denied.

ii. Acknowledgment vs. Denial: In Devasahaya Nadar's case, the assessee
acknowledged the investments but claimed they were from legitimate sources. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has categorically denied receiving any cash payments
beyond what was declared in the registered sale deeds.

iii. Physical Assets vs. No Tangible Evidence: In Devasahaya Nadar's case, there
were physical assets and investments that could be directly linked to the assessee. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there are no physical assets, investments, or financial records
showing the receipt or subsequent use of the alleged cash payments.

iv. Burden of Proof Dynamics: In Devasahaya Nadar's case, the burden was on the
assessee to explain investments that were undisputedly made by him. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the department is attempting to prove that the assessee received additional
consideration not disclosed in registered documents, without any evidence of such
receipts in the assessee's possession or books.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Devasahaya Nadar's case, there
were no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed
and registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot
117
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

be contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Devasahaya Nadar's case, the timing of the
investments aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments continued
for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies business logic and
normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation of Source: In Devasahaya Nadar's case, the department
investigated the alleged sources of the investments and found them to be inadequate. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify
the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly
made these payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Devasahaya Nadar's case, the evidence was
legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were
relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

8. BHAVIN KISHOREBHAI ZINZUWADIA v. ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 22]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Bhavin Kishorebhai Zinzuwadia v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court
addressed a case concerning unexplained cash transactions and the evidentiary value of
entries found in seized documents. The tax authorities had made additions based on
entries found in documents seized during a search operation from a third party.

The legal issue centered on whether entries in documents seized from a third party could
form the basis for making additions to the assessee's income without corroborating
evidence. The Court had to determine the evidentiary value of such third- party
documents and the circumstances under which they could be relied upon.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Certain entries bearing the
assessee's name were found in documents seized from a third party 2. The entries
indicated financial transactions involving the assessee 3. There was corroborating
evidence linking the assessee to these transactions 4. The assessee's explanation
regarding these entries was found to be unsatisfactory and contradictory

The Court held that while entries in third-party documents cannot by themselves form the
basis for additions, they can be relied upon when there is corroborating evidence and the
118
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

assessee fails to provide a satisfactory explanation. The Court emphasized that the
surrounding circumstances, the assessee's conduct, and the presence of corroborating
evidence must be considered when evaluating such entries.

The Court concluded that the burden shifts to the assessee to disprove the authenticity
of such entries when there is prima facie evidence linking the assessee to the
transactions, and mere denial without substantive rebuttal is insufficient.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Corroborating Evidence: In Bhavin Kishorebhai's case, there was corroborating
evidence that linked the assessee to the transactions mentioned in the seized
documents. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no corroborating evidence supporting
the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash withdrawals by the payer, no evidence of
cash receipts by the assessee, and no evidence of subsequent use of the alleged cash.

ii. Contradictory Statements: In Bhavin Kishorebhai's case, the assessee provided
contradictory explanations when confronted with the evidence. In Anshu Sahai HUF's
case, the assessee has consistently denied receiving any cash payments beyond what
was declared in the registered sale deeds, with no contradictions in its position.

iii. Investigation of Entries: In Bhavin Kishorebhai's case, the tax authorities
conducted a thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify the
alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly made
these payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

iv. Specific Identification: In Bhavin Kishorebhai's case, the entries specifically
identified the assessee and could be directly linked to him. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case,
in many instances, the Excel sheet entries do not specifically mention Anshu Sahai HUF
- the name of the assessee appears only at 3 places (Serial Nos. 149, 164, and 166),
while other entries have been arbitrarily attributed to the assessee.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Bhavin Kishorebhai's case, there
were no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed
and registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot
be contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Bhavin Kishorebhai's case, the timing of the
transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments continued
for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies business logic and
normal commercial practice.
119
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

vii. Internal Consistency of Evidence: In Bhavin Kishorebhai's case, the seized
documents were internally consistent and credible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
Excel sheet data contains internal inconsistencies - payments in multiples of hundreds
(which is unusual for large cash transactions) and multiple directors making payments on
the same dates, which defies normal business practice.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Bhavin Kishorebhai's case, the evidence was
legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were
relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

9. VIJAY JAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 46, 50]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Vijay Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case concerning
unexplained cash transactions and the evidentiary value of entries found in documents
seized during search operations. The tax authorities had made additions based on
entries found in documents seized during a search operation.

The legal issue centered on the evidentiary value of entries in seized documents and
whether they could form the basis for making additions to the assessee's income. The

Court had to determine the circumstances under which such entries could be relied upon
and the nature of corroboration required.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Entries indicating financial
transactions involving the assessee were found in documents seized during search
operations 2. There was corroborating evidence supporting these entries, including
statements from third parties 3. The pattern of transactions was consistent with the
assessee's business activities 4. The assessee's explanation regarding these entries
was found to be unsatisfactory and inconsistent

The Court held that entries in seized documents can form the basis for additions when
they are supported by corroborating evidence and the assessee fails to provide a
satisfactory explanation. The Court emphasized that while such entries alone may not be
sufficient, they gain probative value when viewed in light of surrounding circumstances
and corroborating evidence.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Corroborating Evidence: In Vijay Jain's case, there was corroborating evidence
that supported the entries in the seized documents, including statements from third
parties. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no corroborating evidence supporting the
Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash withdrawals by the payer, no evidence of cash
receipts by the assessee, and no evidence of subsequent use of the alleged cash.

ii. Consistency with Business Activities: In Vijay Jain's case, the pattern of
transactions was consistent with the assessee's business activities. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the alleged pattern of cash payments is inconsistent with normal business
practice - it defies logic that a prudent seller would transfer property ownership through
registered sale deeds without receiving full payment.

iii. Investigation and Verification: In Vijay Jain's case, the tax authorities conducted a
thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries, including obtaining
statements from third parties. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the
tax authorities attempted to verify the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul
Kripa Group who supposedly made these payments, despite having access to them
during and after the search.

iv. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Vijay Jain's case, there were no
legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed and registered
sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot be contradicted
by external evidence.

v. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Vijay Jain's case, the timing of the
transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments continued
for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies business logic and
normal commercial practice.

vi. Internal Consistency of Evidence: In Vijay Jain's case, the seized documents
were internally consistent and credible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet
data contains internal inconsistencies - payments in multiples of hundreds (which is
unusual for large cash transactions) and multiple directors making payments on the
same dates, which defies normal business practice.

vii. Specific Identification: In Vijay Jain's case, the entries specifically identified the
assessee and could be directly linked to him. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, in many
instances, the Excel sheet entries do not specifically mention Anshu Sahai HUF - the
name of the assessee appears only at 3 places (Serial Nos. 149, 164, and 166), while
other entries have been arbitrarily attributed to the assessee.
121
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Vijay Jain's case, the evidence was legally
obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were relied
upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

10. GOPAL S PANDIT v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 11, 27, 35, 47]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Gopal S Pandit v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case
concerning the evidentiary value of entries in documents seized during search
operations and the burden of proof in such cases. The tax authorities had made
additions based on entries found in documents seized during a search operation.

The legal issue centered on whether entries in seized documents could form the basis
for making additions to the assessee's income without additional corroboration. The
Court had to determine the circumstances under which such entries could be relied upon
and the extent of corroboration required.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Entries indicating financial
transactions involving the assessee were found in documents seized during search
operations 2. The entries were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be
independently verified 3. There was corroborating evidence supporting these entries,
including bank transactions and statements from third parties 4. The assessee's
explanation regarding these entries was found to be evasive and unconvincing

The Court held that entries in seized documents can form the basis for additions when
they are specific, detailed, and supported by corroborating evidence. The Court
emphasized that the burden shifts to the assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation
when prima facie evidence links the assessee to the transactions recorded in seized
documents.

The Court concluded that mere denial without substantive rebuttal is insufficient when
the seized documents contain specific details that can be independently verified and the
surrounding circumstances support the authenticity of the entries.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Specificity and Detail of Entries: In Gopal S Pandit's case, the entries were
specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently verified. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet entries lack specificity and detail - they merely
show dates and amounts without any supporting details such as mode of payment, place
of payment, or acknowledgment of receipt.
122
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

ii. Corroborating Evidence: In Gopal S Pandit's case, there was corroborating
evidence that supported the entries in the seized documents, including bank transactions
and statements from third parties. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no corroborating
evidence supporting the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash withdrawals by the
payer, no evidence of cash receipts by the assessee, and no evidence of subsequent
use of the alleged cash.

iii. Independent Verification: In Gopal S Pandit's case, the information in the seized
documents could be independently verified through other sources. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the Excel sheet data cannot be independently verified as there are no other
sources or records that confirm these alleged cash transactions.

iv. Assessee's Explanation: In Gopal S Pandit's case, the assessee provided
evasive and unconvincing explanations when confronted with the evidence. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has consistently and categorically denied receiving any
cash payments beyond what was declared in the registered sale deeds, with no
contradictions in its position.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Gopal S Pandit's case, there were
no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed and
registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot be
contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Gopal S Pandit's case, the timing of the
transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments continued
for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies business logic and
normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation and Verification: In Gopal S Pandit's case, the tax authorities
conducted a thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify the
alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly made
these payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Gopal S Pandit's case, the evidence was
legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were
relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

11. KAPURCHAND SHRIMAL v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [Refer
CIT(A) Order Page 37]
123
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Kapurchand Shrimal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case
concerning unexplained investments and the evidentiary value of entries in books of
account. The tax authorities had made additions based on entries found in the
assessee's books that indicated investments for which the assessee could not provide
satisfactory explanations.

The legal issue centered on the burden of proof when unexplained investments are
discovered in an assessee's books of account. The Court had to determine whether the
assessee's explanation could be rejected when it was not supported by concrete
evidence, despite the existence of formal accounting records.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. The assessee's books of
account contained entries indicating substantial investments 2. When questioned, the
assessee provided explanations that lacked documentary support 3. The pattern of
investments did not align with the assessee's declared income and financial profile 4.
There were inconsistencies in the assessee's statements regarding the source of funds
for these investments

The Court held that when unexplained investments are discovered in an assessee's
books of account, the burden is on the assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation
supported by evidence. The Court emphasized that mere assertions without
corroborating evidence are insufficient, especially when the investments are substantial
and inconsistent with the assessee's declared income.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Source of Evidence: In Kapurchand Shrimal's case, the evidence of investments
was found in the assessee's own books of account. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
alleged cash payments were not recorded in any books maintained by the assessee but
were found exclusively in digital data seized from a third party (Gokul Kripa Group).

ii. Nature of Disputed Transactions: In Kapurchand Shrimal's case, the dispute was
about unexplained investments made by the assessee. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
dispute is about alleged cash receipts that the assessee denies ever receiving, not about
investments or assets found in the assessee's possession.

iii. Acknowledgment vs. Denial: In Kapurchand Shrimal's case, the assessee
acknowledged the investments but claimed they were from legitimate sources. In Anshu
124
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has categorically denied receiving any cash payments
beyond what was declared in the registered sale deeds.

iv. Burden of Proof Dynamics: In Kapurchand Shrimal's case, the burden was on the
assessee to explain investments that were undisputedly made by him and recorded in
his books. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the department is attempting to prove that the
assessee received additional consideration not disclosed in registered documents,
without any evidence of such receipts in the assessee's possession or books.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Kapurchand Shrimal's case, there
were no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed
and registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot
be contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Kapurchand Shrimal's case, the timing of the
investments aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments continued
for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies business logic and
normal commercial practice.
vii. Investigation and Verification: In Kapurchand Shrimal's case, the tax authorities
investigated the alleged sources of the investments and found them to be inadequate. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify
the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly
made these payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Kapurchand Shrimal's case, the evidence was
legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were
relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

12. JASJIT SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Jasjit Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case concerning
unexplained cash transactions and the evidentiary value of entries found in documents
seized during search operations. The tax authorities had made additions based on
entries found in documents seized during a search operation.

The legal issue centered on whether entries in seized documents could form the basis
for making additions to the assessee's income without additional corroboration. The
125
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Court had to determine the circumstances under which such entries could be relied upon
and the extent of corroboration required.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Entries indicating financial
transactions involving the assessee were found in documents seized during search
operations 2. The entries were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be
independently verified 3. There was corroborating evidence supporting these entries,
including statements from third parties 4. The assessee's explanation regarding these
entries was found to be unsatisfactory and inconsistent

The Court held that entries in seized documents can form the basis for additions when
they are specific, detailed, and supported by corroborating evidence. The Court
emphasized that while such entries alone may not be sufficient, they gain probative
value when viewed in light of surrounding circumstances and corroborating evidence.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Specificity and Detail of Entries: In Jasjit Singh's case, the entries were specific,
detailed, and contained information that could be independently verified. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the Excel sheet entries lack specificity and detail - they merely show dates
and amounts without any supporting details such as mode of payment, place of
payment, or acknowledgment of receipt.

ii. Corroborating Evidence: In Jasjit Singh's case, there was corroborating evidence
that supported the entries in the seized documents, including statements from third
parties. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no corroborating evidence supporting the
Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash withdrawals by the payer, no evidence of cash
receipts by the assessee, and no evidence of subsequent use of the alleged cash.

iii. Independent Verification: In Jasjit Singh's case, the information in the seized
documents could be independently verified through other sources. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the Excel sheet data cannot be independently verified as there are no other
sources or records that confirm these alleged cash transactions.

iv. Assessee's Explanation: In Jasjit Singh's case, the assessee provided
unsatisfactory and inconsistent explanations when confronted with the evidence. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has consistently and categorically denied
receiving any cash payments beyond what was declared in the registered sale deeds,
with no contradictions in its position.
126
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Jasjit Singh's case, there were no
legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed and registered
sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot be contradicted
by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Jasjit Singh's case, the timing of the
transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments continued
for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies business logic and
normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation and Verification: In Jasjit Singh's case, the tax authorities conducted
a thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries. In Anshu Sahai HUF's
case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify the alleged cash
payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly made these
payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Jasjit Singh's case, the evidence was legally
obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were relied
upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

13. SUSHIL KUMAR MOHANANI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Sushil Kumar Mohanani v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case
concerning unexplained cash transactions and the evidentiary value of entries found in
documents seized during search operations. The tax authorities had made additions
based on entries found in documents seized during a search operation.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Entries indicating financial
transactions involving the assessee were found in documents seized during search
operations 2. The entries were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be
independently verified 3. There was corroborating evidence supporting these entries,
including bank transactions and statements from third parties 4. The assessee's
explanation regarding these entries was found to be evasive and unconvincing
127
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Specificity and Detail of Entries: In Sushil Kumar Mohanani's case, the entries
were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently verified. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet entries lack specificity and detail - they merely
show dates and amounts without any supporting details such as mode of payment, place
of payment, or acknowledgment of receipt.

ii. Corroborating Evidence: In Sushil Kumar Mohanani's case, there was
corroborating evidence that supported the entries in the seized documents, including
bank transactions and statements from third parties. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is
no corroborating evidence supporting the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash
withdrawals by the payer, no evidence of cash receipts by the assessee, and no
evidence of subsequent use of the alleged cash.

iii. Independent Verification: In Sushil Kumar Mohanani's case, the information in
the seized documents could be independently verified through other sources. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data cannot be independently verified as there are no
other sources or records that confirm these alleged cash transactions.

iv. Assessee's Explanation: In Sushil Kumar Mohanani's case, the assessee
provided evasive and unconvincing explanations when confronted with the evidence. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has consistently and categorically denied
receiving any cash payments beyond what was declared in the registered sale deeds,
with no contradictions in its position.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Sushil Kumar Mohanani's case,
there were no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed
and registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot
be contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Sushil Kumar Mohanani's case, the timing of
the transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case,
128
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

the chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments
continued for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies
business logic and normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation and Verification: In Sushil Kumar Mohanani's case, the tax
authorities conducted a thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify
the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly
made these payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Sushil Kumar Mohanani's case, the evidence
was legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records
were relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

14. PAWAN KUMAR MALHOTRA v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Pawan Kumar Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case
concerning unexplained cash transactions and the evidentiary value of entries found in
documents seized during search operations. The tax authorities had made additions
based on entries found in documents seized during a search operation.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Entries indicating financial
transactions involving the assessee were found in documents seized during search
operations 2. The entries were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be
independently verified 3. There was corroborating evidence supporting these entries,
including bank transactions and statements from third parties 4. The assessee's
explanation regarding these entries was found to be unsatisfactory and inconsistent

The Court held that entries in seized documents can form the basis for additions when
they are specific, detailed, and supported by corroborating evidence. The Court

emphasized that while such entries alone may not be sufficient, they gain probative
value when viewed in light of surrounding circumstances and corroborating evidence.
129
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Specificity and Detail of Entries: In Pawan Kumar Malhotra's case, the entries
were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently verified. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet entries lack specificity and detail - they merely
show dates and amounts without any supporting details such as mode of payment, place
of payment, or acknowledgment of receipt.

ii. Corroborating Evidence: In Pawan Kumar Malhotra's case, there was
corroborating evidence that supported the entries in the seized documents, including
bank transactions and statements from third parties. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is
no corroborating evidence supporting the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash
withdrawals by the payer, no evidence of cash receipts by the assessee, and no
evidence of subsequent use of the alleged cash.

iii. Independent Verification: In Pawan Kumar Malhotra's case, the information in the
seized documents could be independently verified through other sources. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data cannot be independently verified as there are no
other sources or records that confirm these alleged cash transactions.

iv. Assessee's Explanation: In Pawan Kumar Malhotra's case, the assessee
provided unsatisfactory and inconsistent explanations when confronted with the
evidence. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has consistently and categorically
denied receiving any cash payments beyond what was declared in the registered sale
deeds, with no contradictions in its position.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Pawan Kumar Malhotra's case,
there were no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed
and registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot
be contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Pawan Kumar Malhotra's case, the timing of
the transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case,
the chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments
continued for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies
business logic and normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation and Verification: In Pawan Kumar Malhotra's case, the tax
authorities conducted a thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries. In
130
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify
the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly
made these payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Pawan Kumar Malhotra's case, the evidence
was legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records
were relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

15. KHOPADE KISANRAO MANIKRAO v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a
case concerning unexplained cash transactions and the evidentiary value of entries
found in documents seized during search operations. The tax authorities had made
additions based on entries found in documents seized during a search operation.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Entries indicating financial
transactions involving the assessee were found in documents seized during search
operations 2. The entries were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be
independently verified 3. There was corroborating evidence supporting these entries,
including statements from third parties 4. The assessee's explanation regarding these
entries was found to be unsatisfactory and inconsistent

The Court held that entries in seized documents can form the basis for additions when
they are specific, detailed, and supported by corroborating evidence. The Court
emphasized that while such entries alone may not be sufficient, they gain probative
value when viewed in light of surrounding circumstances and corroborating evidence.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case
131
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

i. Specificity and Detail of Entries: In Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao's case, the
entries were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently
verified. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet entries lack specificity and detail -
they merely show dates and amounts without any supporting details such as mode of
payment, place of payment, or acknowledgment of receipt.

ii. Corroborating Evidence: In Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao's case, there was
corroborating evidence that supported the entries in the seized documents, including
statements from third parties. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no corroborating
evidence supporting the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash withdrawals by the
payer, no evidence of cash receipts by the assessee, and no evidence of subsequent
use of the alleged cash.

iii. Independent Verification: In Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao's case, the information
in the seized documents could be independently verified through other sources. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data cannot be independently verified as there
are no other sources or records that confirm these alleged cash transactions.

iv. Assessee's Explanation: In Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao's case, the assessee
provided unsatisfactory and inconsistent explanations when confronted with the
evidence. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has consistently and categorically
denied receiving any cash payments beyond what was declared in the registered sale
deeds, with no contradictions in its position.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao's case,
there were no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed
and registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot
be contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao's case, the
timing of the transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash
payments continued for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which
defies business logic and normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation and Verification: In Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao's case, the tax
authorities conducted a thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify
the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly
made these payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao's case, the
evidence was legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
132
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

electronic records were relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper
certification.

16. PRAVINBHAI KESHAVBHAI PATEL v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a
case concerning unexplained cash transactions and the evidentiary value of entries
found in documents seized during search operations. The tax authorities had made
additions based on entries found in documents seized during a search operation.

be independently verified 3. There was corroborating evidence supporting these entries,
including bank transactions and statements from third parties 4. The assessee's
explanation regarding these entries was found to be evasive and unconvincing

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Specificity and Detail of Entries: In Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel's case, the
entries were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently
verified. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet entries lack specificity and detail -
133
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

they merely show dates and amounts without any supporting details such as mode of
payment, place of payment, or acknowledgment of receipt.

ii. Corroborating Evidence: In Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel's case, there was
corroborating evidence that supported the entries in the seized documents, including
bank transactions and statements from third parties. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is
no corroborating evidence supporting the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash
withdrawals by the payer, no evidence of cash receipts by the assessee, and no
evidence of subsequent use of the alleged cash.

iii. Independent Verification: In Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel's case, the information
in the seized documents could be independently verified through other sources. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data cannot be independently verified as there
are no other sources or records that confirm these alleged cash transactions.

iv. Assessee's Explanation: In Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel's case, the assessee
provided evasive and unconvincing explanations when confronted with the evidence. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has consistently and categorically denied
receiving any cash payments beyond what was declared in the registered sale deeds,
with no contradictions in its position.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel's case,
there were no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed
and registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot
be contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel's case, the
timing of the transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash
payments continued for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which
defies business logic and normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation and Verification: In Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel's case, the tax
authorities conducted a thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify
the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly
made these payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel's case, the
evidence was legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
electronic records were relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper
certification.
134
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

17. VEENA ESTATES v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Veena Estates v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case
concerning unexplained cash transactions in real estate dealings and the evidentiary
value of entries found in documents seized during search operations. The tax authorities
had made additions based on entries found in documents seized during a search
operation that suggested undisclosed consideration in property transactions.

The legal issue centered on whether entries in seized documents could form the basis
for making additions to the assessee's income in real estate transactions where
registered documents showed different consideration amounts. The Court had to
determine the circumstances under which such entries could be relied upon to contradict
officially registered property documents.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Entries indicating additional cash
payments in real estate transactions were found in documents seized during search
operations 2. The entries were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be
independently verified 3. There was corroborating evidence supporting these entries,
including statements from buyers/sellers and other financial records 4. The pattern of
transactions aligned with known market practices in real estate where part consideration
is often paid in cash 5. The assessee's explanation regarding these entries was found to
be unsatisfactory and inconsistent

The Court held that entries in seized documents can form the basis for additions in real
estate transactions when they are specific, detailed, and supported by corroborating
evidence, even if they contradict registered sale deeds. The Court emphasized that in
real estate transactions, it is a common practice to show lower consideration in
registered documents to evade taxes, and tax authorities are entitled to look beyond the
apparent state of affairs.

The Court concluded that the burden shifts to the assessee to disprove the authenticity
of such entries when there is prima facie evidence suggesting undisclosed
consideration, and mere reliance on registered documents without substantive rebuttal is
insufficient.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Corroborating Evidence: In Veena Estates' case, there was corroborating
evidence that supported the entries in the seized documents, including statements from
buyers/sellers and other financial records. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no
corroborating evidence supporting the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash
135
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

withdrawals by the payer, no evidence of cash receipts by the assessee, and no
evidence of subsequent use of the alleged cash.

ii. Pattern of Transactions: In Veena Estates' case, the pattern of transactions
aligned with known market practices in real estate. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
alleged pattern of cash payments defies normal business logic - it is implausible that a
prudent seller would transfer property ownership through registered sale deeds without
receiving full payment, especially when the alleged cash payments continued for 19
months after the registration of the last sale deed.

iii. Specificity and Detail of Entries: In Veena Estates' case, the entries were
specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently verified. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet entries lack specificity and detail - they merely
show dates and amounts without any supporting details such as mode of payment, place
of payment, or acknowledgment of receipt.

iv. Assessee's Explanation: In Veena Estates' case, the assessee provided
unsatisfactory and inconsistent explanations when confronted with the evidence. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has consistently and categorically denied
receiving any cash payments beyond what was declared in the registered sale deeds,
with no contradictions in its position.

v. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Veena Estates' case, the timing of the
undisclosed cash payments aligned with the property transactions. In Anshu Sahai
HUF's case, the chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash
payments continued for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which
defies business logic and normal commercial practice.

vi. Investigation and Verification: In Veena Estates' case, the tax authorities
conducted a thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries, including
obtaining statements from buyers/sellers. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no
evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify the alleged cash payments with the
directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly made these payments, despite having
access to them during and after the search.

vii. Source of Evidence: In Veena Estates' case, the evidence was found in
documents that had a direct connection to the assessee's business activities. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data was found exclusively in digital data seized from
a third party (Gokul Kripa Group), with no direct connection established between this
data and the assessee.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Veena Estates' case, the evidence was legally
obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were relied
136
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

18. LKS GOLD HOUSE v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In LKS Gold House v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case
concerning unexplained cash transactions in a jewelry business and the evidentiary
value of entries found in documents seized during search operations. The tax authorities
had made additions based on entries found in documents seized during a search
operation that suggested undisclosed sales and income.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Entries indicating undisclosed
sales and income were found in documents seized during search operations 2. The
entries were specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently
verified 3. There was corroborating evidence supporting these entries, including physical
inventory discrepancies and statements from employees 4. The pattern of transactions
aligned with the nature of the jewelry business where cash transactions are common 5.
The assessee's explanation regarding these entries was found to be evasive and
unconvincing

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Nature of Business and Transactions: In LKS Gold House's case, the
transactions involved were consistent with the assessee's jewelry business where cash
137
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

transactions are common. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the transactions involved real
estate sales through registered deeds, where it is uncommon and illogical for a seller to
transfer property without receiving full payment.

ii. Corroborating Evidence: In LKS Gold House's case, there was corroborating
evidence that supported the entries in the seized documents, including physical
inventory discrepancies and statements from employees. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case,
there is no corroborating evidence supporting the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash
withdrawals by the payer, no evidence of cash receipts by the assessee, and no
evidence of subsequent use of the alleged cash.

iii. Specificity and Detail of Entries: In LKS Gold House's case, the entries were
specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently verified. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet entries lack specificity and detail - they merely
show dates and amounts without any supporting details such as mode of payment, place
of payment, or acknowledgment of receipt.

iv. Assessee's Explanation: In LKS Gold House's case, the assessee provided
evasive and unconvincing explanations when confronted with the evidence. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has consistently and categorically denied receiving any
cash payments beyond what was declared in the registered sale deeds, with no
contradictions in its position.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In LKS Gold House's case, there were
no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In Anshu
Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed and
registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot be
contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In LKS Gold House's case, the timing of the
transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments continued
for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies business logic and
normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation and Verification: In LKS Gold House's case, the tax authorities
conducted a thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries, including
obtaining statements from employees. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence
that the tax authorities attempted to verify the alleged cash payments with the directors
of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly made these payments, despite having access to
them during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In LKS Gold House's case, the evidence was
legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were
138
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

19. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Calcutta Knitwears v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court addressed a case
concerning the interpretation and application of Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act,
which deals with undisclosed income of any other person. The case involved the
procedural requirements for initiating proceedings against third parties based on
evidence found during search operations.

The legal issue centered on whether the Income Tax authorities could initiate
proceedings against third parties based on materials seized during search operations
conducted on other persons, and the procedural safeguards that must be followed in
such cases. The Court had to determine the scope of Section 158BD and the conditions
precedent for its invocation.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. During search operations
conducted on certain persons, materials were found suggesting undisclosed income of
third parties 2. The tax authorities initiated proceedings against these third parties under
Section 158BD 3. The question arose whether proper procedure was followed in
recording satisfaction before initiating such proceedings 4. The timing and manner of
recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer was disputed

The Court held that before initiating proceedings under Section 158BD against third
parties, the Assessing Officer must record proper satisfaction based on materials found
during the search. The Court emphasized that this satisfaction must be based on cogent
materials having rational connection to the formation of belief about undisclosed income.

The Court concluded that mere suspicion or vague references in seized materials are
insufficient for initiating proceedings against third parties, and there must be tangible
material with rational nexus to the formation of belief about undisclosed income.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Nature of Legal Issue: In Calcutta Knitwears' case, the primary issue was
procedural - whether proper satisfaction was recorded before initiating proceedings
against third parties. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the issue is substantive - whether the
Excel sheet data found from a third party constitutes reliable evidence of undisclosed
income.
139
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

ii. Quality and Reliability of Evidence: In Calcutta Knitwears' case, the Court
emphasized that proceedings must be based on cogent materials having rational
connection to undisclosed income. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data
lacks cogency - it contains no details about mode of payment, place of payment, or
acknowledgment of receipt, and has internal inconsistencies.

iii. Corroborating Evidence: In Calcutta Knitwears' case, the Court required tangible
material with rational nexus to undisclosed income. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is
no corroborating evidence supporting the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash
withdrawals by the payer, no evidence of cash receipts by the assessee, and no
evidence of subsequent use of the alleged cash.

iv. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Calcutta Knitwears' case, there was
no discussion of contradictions with legally executed documents. In Anshu Sahai HUF's
case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed and registered sale
deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot be contradicted by
external evidence.

v. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Calcutta Knitwears' case, the timing of
recording satisfaction was a procedural issue. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
chronology of events contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments
continued for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies
business logic and normal commercial practice.

vi. Investigation and Verification: In Calcutta Knitwears' case, the Court emphasized
the need for proper investigation before initiating proceedings. In Anshu Sahai HUF's
case, there is no evidence that the tax authorities attempted to verify the alleged cash
payments with the directors of Gokul Kripa Group who supposedly made these
payments, despite having access to them during and after the search.

vii. Rational Connection to Undisclosed Income: In Calcutta Knitwears' case, the
Court required a rational connection between seized materials and the belief about
undisclosed income. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data lacks a rational
connection to undisclosed income - it defies business logic that a prudent seller would
transfer property ownership without receiving full payment.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Calcutta Knitwears' case, the admissibility of
evidence was not directly addressed. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records
were relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

20. KANUNGO & COMPANY v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]
140
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case

In Kanungo & Company v. Collector of Customs, the Supreme Court addressed a case
concerning the evidentiary value of entries in seized documents and the burden of proof
in customs proceedings. The case involved allegations of customs duty evasion based
on documents seized during search operations.

The legal issue centered on whether entries in seized documents could form the basis
for making additions or imposing penalties without additional corroboration. The Court
had to determine the circumstances under which such entries could be relied upon and
the extent of corroboration required.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Entries indicating customs duty
evasion were found in documents seized during search operations 2. The entries were
specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently verified 3.
There was corroborating evidence supporting these entries, including physical
verification of goods and statements from employees 4. The pattern of transactions
aligned with the nature of the import business 5. The assessee's explanation regarding
these entries was found to be unsatisfactory and inconsistent

The Supreme Court held that entries in seized documents can form the basis for
proceedings when they are specific, detailed, and supported by corroborating evidence.

The Court emphasized that while such entries alone may not be sufficient, they gain
probative value when viewed in light of surrounding circumstances and corroborating
evidence.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Specificity and Detail of Entries: In Kanungo & Company's case, the entries were
specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently verified. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet entries lack specificity and detail - they merely
show dates and amounts without any supporting details such as mode of payment, place
of payment, or acknowledgment of receipt.

ii. Corroborating Evidence: In Kanungo & Company's case, there was corroborating
evidence that supported the entries in the seized documents, including physical
verification of goods and statements from employees. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there
is no corroborating evidence supporting the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash
141
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

withdrawals by the payer, no evidence of cash receipts by the assessee, and no
evidence of subsequent use of the alleged cash.

iii. Independent Verification: In Kanungo & Company's case, the information in the
seized documents could be independently verified through physical examination of
goods and other sources. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data cannot be
independently verified as there are no other sources or records that confirm these
alleged cash transactions.

iv. Assessee's Explanation: In Kanungo & Company's case, the assessee provided
unsatisfactory and inconsistent explanations when confronted with the evidence. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the assessee has consistently and categorically denied
receiving any cash payments beyond what was declared in the registered sale deeds,
with no contradictions in its position.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Kanungo & Company's case, there
were no legally executed documents that contradicted the department's position. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed
and registered sale deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot
be contradicted by external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Kanungo & Company's case, the timing of
the transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case,
the chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments
continued for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies
business logic and normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation and Verification: In Kanungo & Company's case, the authorities
conducted a thorough investigation to verify the authenticity of the entries, including
physical verification of goods. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the
tax authorities attempted to verify the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul
Kripa Group who supposedly made these payments, despite having access to them
during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Kanungo & Company's case, the evidence
was legally obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records
were relied upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

21. CANARA BANK v. DEBASIS DAS
[Refer CIT(A) Order Page 37]

Legal and Factual Aspects of the Case
142
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

In Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, the Supreme Court addressed a case concerning the
evidentiary value of documents and the standard of proof required in proceedings
involving allegations of fraud or misconduct. The case involved allegations of fraudulent
transactions based on documentary evidence.

The legal issue centered on whether documentary evidence could form the basis for
proceedings without additional corroboration, particularly in cases involving serious
allegations of fraud. The Court had to determine the standard of proof required and the
extent of corroboration necessary.

The factual matrix revealed several critical elements: 1. Documentary evidence
indicating fraudulent transactions was presented 2. The documents were specific,
detailed, and contained information that could be independently verified 3. There was
corroborating evidence supporting these documents, including bank records and
statements from witnesses 4. The pattern of transactions was consistent with the
allegations of fraud 5. The respondent's explanation regarding these documents was
found to be unsatisfactory and inconsistent

The Supreme Court held that in cases involving serious allegations of fraud or
misconduct, a higher standard of proof is required, though not as high as 'beyond
reasonable doubt' in criminal cases. The Court emphasized that documentary evidence
must be specific, detailed, and supported by corroborating evidence.

The Court concluded that mere suspicion or vague references are insufficient for
establishing fraud, and there must be clear and convincing evidence with rational nexus
to the allegations.

Distinguishing Points from Anshu Sahai HUF's Case

i. Standard of Proof: In Canara Bank's case, the Court emphasized the need for a
higher standard of proof in cases involving serious allegations. In Anshu Sahai HUF's
case, the tax authorities have not met even a basic standard of proof - they rely solely on
Excel sheet data without any corroborating evidence.
ii. Specificity and Detail of Evidence: In Canara Bank's case, the documentary
evidence was specific, detailed, and contained information that could be independently
verified. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet entries lack specificity and detail -
they merely show dates and amounts without any supporting details such as mode of
payment, place of payment, or acknowledgment of receipt.

iii. Corroborating Evidence: In Canara Bank's case, there was corroborating
evidence that supported the documentary evidence, including bank records and
statements from witnesses. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no corroborating
evidence supporting the Excel sheet data - no evidence of cash withdrawals by the
143
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

payer, no evidence of cash receipts by the assessee, and no evidence of subsequent
use of the alleged cash.

iv. Independent Verification: In Canara Bank's case, the information in the
documents could be independently verified through bank records and other sources. In
Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the Excel sheet data cannot be independently verified as there
are no other sources or records that confirm these alleged cash transactions.

v. Contradictions with Legal Documentation: In Canara Bank's case, there were no
legally executed documents that contradicted the allegations. In Anshu Sahai HUF's
case, the alleged Excel sheet data contradicts the legally executed and registered sale
deeds, which under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act cannot be contradicted by
external evidence.

vi. Timing and Sequence of Events: In Canara Bank's case, the timing of the
transactions aligned with the period under investigation. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the
chronology contradicts the department's position - the alleged cash payments continued
for 19 months after the registration of the last sale deed, which defies business logic and
normal commercial practice.

vii. Investigation and Verification: In Canara Bank's case, a thorough investigation
was conducted to verify the authenticity of the documents, including obtaining
statements from witnesses. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, there is no evidence that the tax
authorities attempted to verify the alleged cash payments with the directors of Gokul
Kripa Group who supposedly made these payments, despite having access to them
during and after the search.

viii. Legal Admissibility of Evidence: In Canara Bank's case, the evidence was legally
obtained and admissible. In Anshu Sahai HUF's case, the electronic records were relied
upon without compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
making them legally inadmissible without proper certification.

12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed

on record. Vide Ground no. 1 the assessee - appellant challenges action of

the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction

under section 153C of the Act and thereby prayed to quash impugned order

being illegal and without jurisdiction. On this ground the bench noted from
144
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

the record that required satisfaction was drawn by ld. ACIT Central Circle -

2, Jaipur and was sent to the ld. AO having jurisdiction of the Assessee

Appellant for initiating action u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide

letter no. 368 dated 17.10.2022. (Ld. AO Page 1). The contention of the

assessee that "provisions of section 153C are not applicable for searches

initiated on or after 01.04.2021. In the instant case, for the purpose of

Section 153C, the deemed date of search is 17.10.2022. In view of the

matter, the date of search for the Assessee Appellant being 17.10.2022, the

invoking of the provisions of section 153C is invalid and without jurisdiction."

Record further reveals that the assessee repeated praying to provide

to the revenue the satisfaction note recorded by the ld. AO of the searched

person and satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO of the Assessee Appellant

have not been provided and the revenue did not present it in the present

appellate proceeding and therefore, we are of the considered view that the

without providing the satisfaction note for acquiring the jurisdiction the

ultimate order lacks the jurisdiction. On this aspect of the matter ld. AR of

the assessee in the case law paper book filed relied upon the decision of

Hon'ble Karnatak High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharema

469 ITR 197(Karnataka) wherein the High Court held that;

53. Further, satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C
of the IT Act for each Assessment Year and in the impugned proceedings, a
145
ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025
Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT

consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different Assessment
Years, which also vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. In view of all
these findings, it is said that the appeals do not have any substance for seeking
intervention as sought for by the appellant/Revenue.
54. The question as regards whether in an intra court appeal, a Division Bench
could remit a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief, it is relevant to refer
to an Apex Court decision dated 31-7-2018 rendered in the case of Roma
Sonkar v. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission [Civil Appeal Nos.
7400-7401 of 2018, dated 31-7-2018]. The relevant paragraph 3 of the said order
reads thus:
"3. We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra
court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the
relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench
exercised the same jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants,
another tier of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of the power
of the High Court but that does not mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to
the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon,
in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or
otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our view, the
Division Bench needs to consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the
correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead of remitting the
matter to the learned Single Judge."
55. In the totality of circumstances, and also on dwelling in detail with the
materials, it reveals that the learned Single Judge has considered all the points
and has gone through the reliances facilitated on both sides and has rendered
the impugned order, which has been challenged by filing the present appeals.
The grounds urged in the appeals preferred by the appellant/Revenue, do not
have any substance and the impugned order rendered by the learned Single
Judge do not suffer from any infirmity and further, no warranting circumstances
arise for interference. Consequently, these appeals deserve to be rejected as
being devoid of merits.
56. In the light of the above said Apex court Decisions and the Panchanama
provided herein, it is deemed appropriate to conclude that the notice provided
under section 153C is bad in law.
We are therefore clearly of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is right in
allowing the Writ petitions. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

The appeals preferred by the appellant/Revenue are hereby rejected. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.9937/2022 C/w. W.P.Nos.9938/2022, 9939/2022, 9945/2022 and 9946/2022 is hereby confirmed.

Before parting with this judgment, this Court places on record its deep appreciation for the able research and assistance rendered by its Research Assistant-cum-Law Clerk, Mr.Pranav.K.B. 146 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT The bench also noted that SLP against that decision filed by the revenue was also dismissed by the Apex Court and therefore, respectfully, following the above judicial precedent cited by the ld. AR of the assessee we considered ground no. 1 raised by the assessee.

12.1 Vide ground no. 2 the assessee - appellant challenges the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the assessment order which was passed without obtaining proper approval under section 153D of the Act and thereby prayed to quash the entire assessment order as absence of proper approval under section 153D has vitiated the assessment order.

Record reveals that all the seven Assessment Years i.e. A.Y. 2015- 16, A.Y. 2016-17, A.Y. 2017-18, A.Y. 2018-19, A.Y. 2019-20, A.Y. 2020-21, A.Y. 2021-22 were approved in just one day. The draft assessment orders by ld. AO were sent, for approval, on 22.03.2024 and all the seven assessment orders were approved on 23.03.2024 [paper book page 188- 195]. The prime object of entrusting the duty of approval of assessment in search cases is that the Additional CIT, with his experience and maturity of understanding, should scrutinize the seized documents and other material forming the foundation of assessment. Whenever any statutory obligation is casted upon any statutory authority such authority is required to discharge 147 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT its obligation not mechanically, but after due application of mind. Thus, the obligation of granting approval acts as an inbuilt protection to the taxpayer against arbitrary or unjust exercise of discretion. As is evident from the record that for the year under consideration, the approval granted was granted for all the year absolutely mechanical without even analysing the basic evidences and was given in just one having much of the facts and seized records to be examined and completing the process just in one day for all these years is humanely not possible in a day. This approval was granted along with discharging other regular official functions and maybe also other such approvals by the same approving authority. Ld. AR of the assessee serviced the decision of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Shreelekha Damani V. DCIT (2015) 173 TTJ (Mumbai) 332, wherein the co-ordinate bench held that:

"Coming to the facts of the case in hand in the light of the analytical discussion hereinabove and as mentioned elsewhere, the Addl. Commissioner has showed his inability to analyze the issues of draft order on merit clearly stating that no much time is left, inasmuch as the draft order was placed before him on 31.12.2010 and the approval was granted on the very same day. Considering the factual matrix of the approval letter, we have no hesitation to hold that the approval granted by the Addl. Commissioner is devoid of any application of mind, is mechanical and without considering the materials on record. In our considered opinion, the power vested in the Joint Commissioner/Addl Commissioner to grant or not to grant approval is coupled with a duty. The Addl Commissioner/Joint Commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposals put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the AO. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. We are constrained to observe that in the present case, there has been no application of mind by the Addl. Commissioner before granting the approval. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessment order made u/s. 143(3) of the Act r.w. sec. 153A of the 148 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT Act is bad in law and deserves to be annulled. The additional ground of appeal is allowed."

Reliance was also placed on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015]

64.taxmann.com 313 (SC) wherein the department's SLP was dismissed. Similar view was serviced as legal precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that approval u/s 153D is a mandatory safeguard and cannot be granted mechanically. Further, in PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal [2024] 165 taxmann.com 3 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the finding that absence of application of mind by the approving authority renders the approval invalid. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in PCIT vs. Sapna Gupta [2023] 147 taxmann.com 288 (All HC), that approval must be granted separately for each assessment year. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd [2024] 166 taxmann.com 327 (Del HC) and in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar [2024] 163 taxmann.com 9 (Del HC) quashed approvals granted in bulk for multiple assessments without application of mind. These judgments reinforce the principle that approval under Section 153D is not a mere administrative ritual but a substantive safeguard, which must be exercised 149 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT judiciously for each assessment year independently. That view was also consistently followed by the various benches of the ITAT for which reference was made to the decision of ITAT Delhi Benches in Harish Bajaj vs. DCIT, ITA No. 2218 to 2223/Del/2023 and Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA 5241/Del/2015, ITAT Pune in Santosh Subhashappa Mukta vs. DCIT, ITA 18,19 & 20/PUN/2021, where assessments framed on the basis of mechanical approvals u/s 153D were held to be invalid and quashed.

Since the facts of the case on hand and the facts of the case laws as cited herein above on being consistent with the legal precedent of the case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Courts, and consistently applied by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal, we hold that the approval granted u/s 153D in the present case was accorded in a mechanical without due application of mind. Such approval being invalid, the consequential assessment orders framed u/s 153C read with Section 153D for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2018-19 cannot be sustained in law and are therefore quashed. In the result Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed.

12.3 Vide ground no. 3 the assessee - appellant challenges that ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition amounting to Rs. 16,21,91,214/- (albeit 150 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT as part of capital gains) based on the set of facts and circumstances available on record and thereby the same is required to be deleted. The brief facts as emerges from the record are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the Gokul Kripa Group on 19.01.2021. During the course of search, it is alleged, that certain incriminating digital data was found at one of the premises of Gokul Kripa Group. The said digital data, as per allegations, by the ld. AO, contained details of cash payments which allegedly were made, over and above the cheque payments, towards consideration for purchase of the above lands from the Assessee Appellant along with other family members. The details of such alleged cash payments are appearing at pages 4 to 14 of the order of the ld. AO. It is alleged that the total cash payments, emerging from above digital data, in all, amounted to Rs. 56,31,38,250/- made to all the family members towards all the sale transactions spanning over the following 3 financial years (ld. AO Pages 34). Ld. AO apportioned the alleged on-money paid in cash in proportion to cheque amount received by individual seller and, thereafter, said amount was further bifurcated into three financial years. The said workings are appearing at page 35 of the assessment order. On the basis of above presumptions and apportionment, following additions 151 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT have been made towards alleged consideration received for sale of land over and above the consideration received through banking channel:

                   Assessment Year          Amount (in Rs.)
                       2016-17              16,21,91,214/-
                       2017-18              17,81,66,880/-
                       2018-19               3,40,24,557/-

Record reveals that the alleged on-money payments in cash are spread over a period starting from 15.09.2015 and ending on 18.03.2018. This period extends to 30 months. It is submitted that registered sale deeds were executed on 05.11.2015, 01.01.2016 and 04.08.2016. The last deed thus was executed on 04.08.2016 whereas last of the alleged payments was received as late as on 18.03.2018. The gap is about 19 months. In sale of property transaction, it is hard to believe that the seller of property make the document without receipt of the alleged-on money. The revenue could not demonstrate or provide any corroborative evidence to the contention the assessee was given the on-money even after the sale deed was executed. Except that loose sheet no corroborative evidence was placed on record by the revenue to support the contention. Having noted so revenue has not taken any action against the assessee as per provision of section 269ST this itself shows that the case of revenue without any further evidence that the payment as alleged to have been made to the assessee 152 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT are related to that impugned property sold by the assessee to the person searched and the payment by that assessee made to the assessee in appeal and that too after the 19 month of the last transaction and in a piece meal. Not only that it is also hard to believe that 4 parties making separate payment on the same day to the assessee on various occasion and observed by the bench on this issue that the same instances are reported at page 4 onward and serially number at 5, 8 19 & 29. This instances itself suggest that preponderance of probability goes in favour of the assessee and the plea of the revenue has no supporting or corroborative found. Be that it may so it is a matter of common sense that the seller would have no right, least the legal right to recover the on-money. This glaring anomaly in the approach of the revenue is without any support of the any alleged agreement or any record of having agreed to such terms and condition as alleged by the revenue. The recipient of the on-money were not confronted to this issue at the time of search or post search proceeding. Before deriving such conclusion neither at the time of search nor in the post search proceeding revenue confronted to the assessee on such allegation. The bench also considered the factual argument of the ld. AR of the assessee that the name of the assessee is appearing only at 3 places i.e. serial number 149, 164 and 166 (assessment order page 12 & 13). Thus, 153 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT without referring to that specific entry the ld. AO made the addition based on the lump sum and based on the surmises and conjecture without considering the real facts recorded in that loose sheet and that too without getting it confronted to the assessee. The bench thus noted that the alleged Excel Sheet date is absolutely uncorroborated. There is no underlying evidence which could substantiate such entries in the Excel Sheet. It is worthwhile to note that payments have allegedly been made over a period of 30 months and that too by 4 directors namely Sumer Singh Saini, Sangeeta Saini, Phool Chand Saini and Rajesh Kumar. It is beyond comprehension that 4 persons making payments over a period of 30 months would execute that task without maintaining underlying data and also without obtaining signatures of the recipients. This again proves that action of ld. AO is without any basis and beyond human probabilities. It is also out of human probabilities that many payments are in the multiples of hundreds which normally do not look plausible when such huge payment was to be made in cash. Similarly, on various dates, payments are made by more than one directors or even by all the directors which again do not look plausible and this it self raise doubt on the pattern of recording of such entries in the loose excel sheet. That sheet does not contain any reference to voucher or receipt so as to believe the contention of the revenue. Not 154 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT only that it is also revealed from the record that these excel sheet were neither prepared by the assessee nor was found from the control and possession of the assessee. This said Excel Sheet was said to be maintained by a 3rd person and was also found from the possession of a 3rd person. In view of this, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee on the basis of said Excel Sheet. It is further submitted that there is discrepancy / disconnect in the figure appearing in the tables at Page 36 and 37 of the order of the ld. AO as pointed by the ld. AR of the assessee. The record also shows that the entire exercise of ld. AO is based on mere presumptions and assumption without making any efforts to analyze that record and place on record the corroborative evidence to support the view taken by the ld. AO. Thus, when the loose sheet is relied upon without any specific evidence evidence suggesting the contention raised the addition does not survive. The evidence which was relied upon by the revenue are electronic records and the same are relied upon without complying with the requirements of Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As is evident from the record that documents, as relied upon by the Id. AO, are the extracts of the excel sheet alleged to have been maintained by Gokul Kripa Group and seized during the course of search on 19.01.2021. Record further reveals that 155 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT there is no satisfaction of the ld. AO that all the requisite steps were taken by him to ensure that the data output of the PEN Drives/Computer records, seized during the search on Gokul Kripa Group were analysed on "as is"

basis and there is no risk of it being tempered by anyone. The request of the assessee to cross examine the person who made statement were asked but were also not provided therefore, this action also violates the principles of natural justice as held by the Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timbers Industries (Supra) wherein the court held that ""...not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected".

When the assessee taken up all these issues before the ld. CIT(A) who did not deal with the factual inconsistencies brought to his notice as above. He simply rejected the submissions mentioning that what details and in what manner are kept by the buyer is dependent on the trust he has on the seller. On this of corroborative evidence the ld. CIT(A) rejected that plea. Even the plea of the assessee that the material was in the nature of dumb document which would not possess any stand-alone evidentiary 156 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT value since it did not contain the complete particulars of the relevant transactions and the persons involved in the said transactions. The addition as made on the basis of such a dumb document would not be sustainable as the same is non-speaking document, without any corroborative material / evidence or without a finding that such document had materialized into transactions giving rise to income of the Assessee. Thus, to establish that the impugned receipt is of the assessee is on the revenue and the same cannot be done reverse by the assessee. On this issue we get support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) wherein the Apex Court held that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability were fulfilled would always be on the revenue and throwing the burden of showing that there was no under-statement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not receive any consideration beyond what has been declared by him. Thus, the burden would be on revenue to adduce proper evidence to corroborate the contents of the seized material for the purpose of establishing that the assessee was, in fact, in receipt of the payments as noted in the seized material. Discharge of reverse burden is not expected from the assessee. When question raised that whether such entries found 157 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT in the material seized from a third-party could be used to draw adverse inference against the assessee without there being anything more in record in corroboration of the same, the revenue merely relied upon the finding recorded in the order of the assessment and material whatsoever found at the time of third party search were placed on record. Thus, when the material relied upon were not seized from the premises of the assessee nor the same was found in the handwriting of the assessee the same would not constitute adequate evidence to draw any adverse inference against the assessee in the absence of any corroborative evidence as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sant Lal (118 Taxmann.com 432). Even the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017)(397 ITR 246) (Bom), taken a view that that where entire decision is based on huge amounts revealed from seized documents but not supported by any evidence of actual cash passing hands, no addition can be made. As serviced the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause v. UOI (2017) 77 Taxmann.com 254 (SC) that ;

"We are constrained to observe that the Court has to be on guard while ordering investigation against any important constitutional functionary, officers or any person in the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material. When the material on the basis of which investigation is sought is itself irrelevant to constitute evidence and not admissible in evidence, we have apprehension whether it would be safe to even initiate investigation. In case we do so, the investigation can be ordered as against any person whosoever high in integrity on the basis of irrelevant or inadmissible entry falsely made, by any unscrupulous 158 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT person or business house that too not kept in regular books of account but on random papers at any given point of time. There has to be some relevant and admissible evidence and some cogent reason, which is prima facie reliable and that too, supported by some other circumstances pointing out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co- relations with the random entries. In case we do not insist for all these, the process of law can be abused against all and sundry very easily to achieve ulterior goals and then no democracy can survive in case investigations are lightly set in motion against important constitutional functionaries on the basis of fictitious entries, in absence of cogent and admissible material on record, lest liberty of an individual be compromised unnecessarily."

Thus, the prime question ultimately remained unanswered that whether the payments noted in the seized material had actually materialized and transfer of money had actually taken place between the concerned parties without any corroborative evidence placed on record and that when the assessee has already executed the sell deed and thereafter the receipt of the money of the property sold cannot be believed without any express evidence placed on record and therefore, we in the absence of evidence merely based on that stand alone excel sheet unable to support the view of the revenue that the assessee Appellant has received any cash on sale of land to Gokul Kripa Group and that after the sale deed is executed. Thus, considering the detailed submission made by the assessee supported by the arguments on facts and judicial precedent cited and not repeating the same we hold that the addition made in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained. Before we depart it would appropriate to refer the decision of 159 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as serviced by the ld. AR of the assessee in the case of DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, [2024] 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon'ble High Court examined the following question at para 21 of the Order:

(1) Whether 'Loose Sheets' and 'Diary' have an evidentiary value?

The Hon'ble High Court answered in favour of the assessee as under at para 26 of the Order:

"26. It is established in law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a sheet of paper containing typed entries and in loose form, not shown to form part of the books of accounts regularly maintained by the assessee or his business entities, do not constitute material evidence. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the action taken by the respondent/Revenue against the Assessee based on the material contained in the diaries/loose sheets, are contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In that view of the matter, impugned notices issued under section 153C of the Act, based on the loose sheets/diaries are contrary to law, which require to be set aside in these writ appeals, as the same are void and illegal."

Aggrieved by the said order, the Department preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the said SLP in [2024] 165 taxmann.com 846 (SC) Respectfully following the judicial precedent cited and considering that the fact that a buyer paid Rs. 37.43 crores in cash over multiple transactions without obtaining a single signed agreement, acknowledgement, or receipt from the seller is highly unbelievable. No prudent businessperson would make such a substantial payment without legal documentation to safeguard his interest and thereby the contention being without any supporting 160 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT evidence cannot be believe to tax the huge amount in the hands of the assessee. The submission on the reliability of the digital record is considered but not required to be repeated here again to avoid the repetition and thereby we are of the considered view that merely based on the excel sheet without any corroborative evidence no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee and thereby the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed.

12.4 Ground no. 4 being consequential in nature and does not require any finding.

Resultantly the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no. 466/JP/2025 stands allowed.

13. The bench noted that the facts of the case in ITA Nos. 467 & 468/JP/2025 are similar to the facts of the case in ITA No. 466/JP/2025 and we have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in these appeals in ITA Nos. 467 & 468/JP/2025 are equally similar on set of facts and grounds so far as it relates to ground no. 1 to 4 raised in these appeals too. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts, various grounds and arguments raised by both the parties in these appeals so far 161 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT as it relates to the ground no. 1 to 4. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in ITA No. 466/JP/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Anshu Sahai (HUF), Jaipur in ITA Nos. 467 & 468/JP/2025 so far as it relates to ground no. 1 to 4 are concerned.

14. The bench noted that the assessee in ITA no. 467/JP/2025 vide ground no. 5 challenges action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,09,05,920/- in respect of disallowance of claim under section 54B and in respect of calculation of indexed cost of acquisition and improvement in the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act. On this aspect of the matter the bench noted from the paper book so filed by the assessee at page 221 the ld. AO has already considered the claim of the assessee and even made the adjustment to that claim made by the assessee u/s. 54B of the Act vide order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 09.08.2019. Since that claim has already been allowed based on the material verified by the ld. AO the same cannot be subjected addition in the proceeding u/s. 153C of the Act as the claim is not based on any incriminating material and thereby following the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of DCIT Vs. U. K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. [ 150 taxmann.com 108(SC) ] wherein the 162 ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT court held that "Where no incriminating material was found in case of any of assessee either from assessee or from third party High Court rightly set aside assessment order passed under section 153C". Therefore, we consider this ground in favour of the assessee.

15. The bench noted that for the assessment year 2017-18 the assessee raised an additional ground which reads as follows;

"In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. AO has erred in reopening the case under section 148 without authority of the law. The action of the ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reopening being illegal and without jurisdiction."

On this issue while dealing with ground no. 5 we have already considered that no addition can be made in the proceeding u/s. 153C of the Act qua incriminating material considering the decision of Apex Court in the case of M/s U. K. Paints (Supra). Even otherwise when the assessing officer in the earlier 143(3) proceeding has already verified that claim of the assessee to verify that claim again 148 cannot be invoked as it is a change of opinion by the assessing officer.

In terms of these observations, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos. 467 & 468/JP/2025 are allowed.

163

ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025 Anshu Sahai (HUF) vs. ACIT Order pronounced in the open court on 03/11/2025.

                 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:- 03/11/2025
*Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS

vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. The Appellant- Anshu Sahai (HUF), Jaipur

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle-02, Jaipur

3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT

4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 466 to 468/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur

Anshu Sahai (Huf), Jaipur,Jaipur vs Acit, Central Circle 2, Jaipur, Jaipur on 3 November, 2025