Dinesh Kumar Jain Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Code Name “Thekedar” Not Enough – Presumption Under 292C Applies Only to searched assessee; No Crroboration, No Addition – ITAT Relieves Assessee from Hazir Johri Trap
A search u/s 132 was conducted in Jindal Bullion Ltd. (JBL) Group on 05.01.2017. Digital data was seized from software “Hazir Johri”, which revealed parallel books recording both accounted & unaccounted transactions. In the seized data, a ledger with code name “Thekedar” was linked by AO to Assesse Dinesh Kumar Jain.
Based on this, AO initiated proceedings u/s 153C, making additions of ₹66,43,907 (AY 2015-16) & ₹3,70,579 (AY 2016-17). CIT(A) confirmed the additions.
Assessee’s Contentions – No Direct Link
- Assessee’s name did not appear in seized documents; only a pseudonym “Thekedar” was mentioned.
- Ledger contained entries of multiple entities, not exclusively Assessee.
- Statements of JBL employees (Ms. Parul Ahluwalia & Ms. Ekta Soni) were relied on but copies were not furnished & cross-examination was denied.
- No corroborative evidence such as bills, vouchers or stock records supported additions.
- Relied on Delhi ITAT precedents: Sachin Vs DCIT (ITA 2613 & 2614/Del/2022), Sanmati Jewellers Vs DCIT (ITA 3031/Del/2022), Anoop Kumar Soni Vs DCIT (ITA 1641/Del/2021) & Surender Kumar Jain Vs DCIT (ITA 1314/Del/2023), where similar additions based on Hazir Johri entries were deleted.
Revenue’s Stand – Code Name Matches Assessee
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
