ACIT Vs Jitendra Kumar Agarwal (HUF) (ITAT Jaipur)
Suspicion Can’t Replace Evidence – ITAT Confirms Deletion of Rs.1.49 Cr Addition- Loose Paper Not Proof of Cash Loans – Future-Dated Entries on Seized Paper Not Reliable
Revenue filed appeal against order of CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs.1,49,00,000/- u/s 69A towards alleged cash loan advances & Rs.13,41,000/- towards estimated interest.
During search & survey on 28.07.2016, loose paper was found containing hand-written details of amounts, names of parties & dates. AO held these reflected fresh cash loans of Rs.69 lakh to Shri Yogendra Garg, Rs.35 lakh to Shri Ram Enterprises & Rs.45 lakh to Jaina Steels, apart from book loans already given through banking channels. AO treated them as unexplained money u/s 69A & further added Rs.13.41 lakh interest @1% per month.
CIT(A) examined records & found that identical amounts were already recorded in books as advances through banking channel, with interest subjected to TDS & reflected in Form 26AS. He noted that impounded page contained future dates (beyond date of search) & “due date” notings, showing it was only a rough memorandum for repayment/rollover. No corroborative evidence or borrower/broker inquiry was made. Relying on ITAT Jaipur ruling in Chandra Prakash Agarwal HUF Vs DCIT (27.01.2021) concerning the very same seized page, CIT(A) deleted the additions.
