" \n1 ITA Nos. 1903, 1904, 1905, 1893 & 1894/Del/2022 \n \n \nSumitraYadav and Ors \n \n IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI \n (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI \n \n BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER \n AND \n SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \n \nITA No. 1903/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) \n \nSumitra Yadav \nB-550, SushantLok \nPhase-1, Galleria DLF-IV \nS.O. Gurgaon, Haryana \nPAN: AHTPY0138M \nVs. DCIT \nCentral Circle-7, \nDelhi \nAppellant \n \nRespondent \nITA No. 1904/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) \nITA No. 1905/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) \nSushmaYadav \nB-550, SushantLok \nPhase-1, Galleria DLF-IV \nS.O. Gurgaon, Haryana \nPAN: AAMPY6287H \nVs. DCIT \nCentral Circle-7, \nDelhi \nAppellant \n \nRespondent \nITA No. 1893/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) \nITA No. 1894/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) \nSwami \nSaran \nSharma \n(HUF) \nB-550, SushantLok \nPhase-1, Galleria DLF-IV \nS.O. Gurgaon, Haryana \nPAN: AAOHS0003H \nVs. DCIT \nCentral Circle-7, \nDelhi \nAppellant \n \nRespondent \nAssessee by \nSh. Ved Jain, Adv & Shri Aman Garg, Adv \nRevenue by \nMs .Nidhi Singh, CIT DR \nDate of Hearing \n 10/03/2025 \nDate of Pronouncement \n 21/03/2025 \n \n\n \n2 ITA Nos. 1903, 1904, 1905, 1893 & 1894/Del/2022 \n \n \nSumitraYadav and Ors \n \nORDER \nPER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: \nThe above five appeals are filed by the Assessees on the similar \ngrounds of Appeal and emerges out of a search and seizure operation u/s \n132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) conducted on Jindal \nBullion Ltd. (JBL) Group dated 05/01/2017. During the course of the \nsearch, a software named ‘Hajir Johri’ was seized, wherein the details of \nvarious transaction entered by JBL were found. It was noticed that \ncheuqes have been issued by Jindial Bullion Ltd. to the Assessees and \nsince there was a mentioning of cash receipt in that account, the Ld. \nA.O. made addition assuming that the cheques issued by the Assessee \nare against the cash paid by the Assessee to JBL, and held that the \ncredits received in the bank account of the Assessee’s remained \nunexplained as per the provision of Section 68 of the Act and also held \nthat the commission paid to JBL at 1.5% falls under the purview of \nunexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. Accordingly, made similar \nadditions in all the Annexures. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the \nAssesseeshave preferred the Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. \nCIT(A) vide orders dated 21/06/2022, dismissed all the Appeals filed by \nthe above mentioned Assessees. Aggrieved by the orders dated \n21/06/2022,respective Assessees have preferred the captioned Appeals. \n\n \n3 ITA Nos. 1903, 1904, 1905, 1893 & 1894/Del/2022 \n \n \nSumitraYadav and Ors \n \n2. \n The Assessees have filed additional grounds of appeal on the issue \nof DIN, however, the Ld. Assessees Representative submitted that the \nAssessee will not press the issue of DIN and made no submissions on the \nadditional ground. Accordingly, the additional ground of the Assessees \nare dismissed as not pressed. \n \n3. \nThe Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that there is no \nmentioning of any of the Assessees name in the seized document and the \nonlybasis for which proceedings have been initiated against the \nAssessees is the cheque issued by the Jidnal Bullion Ltd. against the \npurchase of jewellery from the Assessees. There is no link with the \ncheques issued to the Assessees and alleged cash receipt by the \nAssessees. Further submitted that even in the statement of Parul \nAhluwalia and Ekta Soni, the names of the Assessee or nature of the \ntransaction with the Assessees have not been mentioned. The Ld. \nCounsel further submitted that the issue involved in the above appeals \nare squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Nirmal \nUppalVs. DCIT, Central Circle in ITA No. 1954 and 1955/Del/2022 and \nin the case of Sanmati Jewellers Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3031/Del/2022, \nthus sought for allowing the above Appeal. \n \n\n \n4 ITA Nos. 1903, 1904, 1905, 1893 & 1894/Del/2022 \n \n \nSumitraYadav and Ors \n \n4. \nThe Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee \nhimself accepted the ledger accounts found in the Hajir Johri books of \naccounts of M/s Jindal Bullion Ltd. reflecting the banking transaction, \nhowever, denied the cash and other transaction reflected therein, which \nwill established that the amount mentioned thereon pertains to the \nrespective Assessee. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the \nfindings and the conclusions of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A), sought \nfor dismissal of the Appeal. \n \n5. \nWe have heard both the parties and perused the material available \non record. In all the above case, the cheques issued by Jidnal Bullion \nLtd. against the purchase of jewellery from the Assessees have been \nmade as basis for initiating the proceedings against the respective \nAssessee. As per the seized material referred by the A.O, no name \nmentioned with regard to receipt of the cash. It is the contention of the \nLd. Assessees Representative that there is no link between alleged cash \nreceipt mentioned in the seized document and the Assessees. Further in \nthe statement of Mr. Parul Ahluwalia and Ekta Soni, no name of the \nAssessees have been stated. The said fact of selling of jewellery have \nbeen duly found recorded in the books of account of Jindal Bullion Ltd. \nwhich has been accepted as it is and the fact of receipt of the cash is not \n\n \n5 ITA Nos. 1903, 1904, 1905, 1893 & 1894/Del/2022 \n \n \nSumitraYadav and Ors \n \nforth coming in the documents relied by the A.O. or by the Ld. CIT(A). In \nthe similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the \ncase of Smt. Nirmal Uppal (supra) deleted the addition in following \nmanners; \n“5. Giving thoughtful consideration the matter on record and submissions \nwhat can be appreciated is that at page no. 30 to 33 of the Paper Book, the \nassessee / appellant has made available the return of income and \ncomputation of total income for the relevant years wherein a long term \ncapital gain of 27,02,000/- by way of sale consideration is shown. The \ndescription of gold sold is available on the purchase memo available at \npage no. 33 of the paper book. The same is in terms of item, weigh and \nrate. The order of Ld. AO shows that the fact of sale of jewellery has been \nout rightly discarded and rather the explanation of this transaction of sale \nof jewelry has been taken as the admission of facts with regard to the \nalleged accommodation entry. \n \n6. The Bench is of considered opinion that as the assessee is former \nCentral Government Employee who retired from the office of Accountant \nGeneral it can be very well believed that she must have been holding some \njewelry. The ld. AO without trying to make any further inquiries from the \nassessee to ascertain the truthfulness of her holding of the jewellery \nproceeded to out rightly discard the explanation. Admittedly in the alleged \nincriminatory material the name of assessee is not reflected and based \nupon some dummy name she has been connected to the transactions. In \nthe statement of Mr. Parul Ahluwalia or any other witness also there is no \nspecific mention of the transaction with assesee, which has been made \nfoundation for holding she was real beneficiary. The assessee was \nrequired to give explanation of the reasons for receiving the credit entry in \nher bank which she has given on the basis of the invoice issued by the \nJBL. Assessee has reported the sale of jewelry as ‘Long term capital gain’, \nTo discredit the same and to connect assessee with the pseudonymous \nentries of cash, some evidence or circumstance based on preponderance of \nprobability was required to be shown by Ld. AO, then mere presumption. \nWhat entries JBL was making in accounts is not conclusive against the \nassessee. May be the Gold purchased was not accounted in stock by JBL \nand it was merely reflected as cash received. Assessee was not under \nonus to prove the entries of JBL. Thus, the judgments relied by Ld. DR are \nthus distinguishable on facts. The orders of Ld. Tax authority below thus \ncannot be sustained. The grounds in ITA no 1955/DEL/2022 and the said \nappeal is allowed. As consequential effect, the Penalty appeal is also \nallowed.” \n \n\n \n6 ITA Nos. 1903, 1904, 1905, 1893 & 1894/Del/2022 \n \n \nSumitraYadav and Ors \n \n6. \nFurther by relying on the order of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal \nin the case of Smt. Nirmal Uppal(supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of the \nTribunal in the case of Sanmati Jewelers (supra), allowed the Appeal of \nthe Assessee thereon in following manners:- \n“27. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials \navailable on record. At the outset, we find that a search and seizure \noperation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 05.01.2017 in the \ncase of Jindal Bullion Ltd (JBL). During this search, digital data \nstored in software called „Hazir Johri‟ was seized from the \nresidence of Mr. Kushagra Jindal, promoter of JBL. The said \nsoftware purportedly contained parallel books maintained by JBL \nwhere both transactions through the banking channel and cash \ntransactions were found recorded. The Ld. AO observed that a \nDirector and former employee of JBL, was recorded under Section \n132(4) of the Act, wherein, she stated that both „pakka‟ (entries \nrecorded in regular books of account) and „kaccha‟ (unaccounted) \ntransactions undertaken by JBL were documented in the „Hazir \nJohri‟ software. On perusal of seized data, among others, a ledger \nnamed „Sanmati 1586‟ allegedly pertaining to Assessee was found. \nIn the said ledger, the transactions made in cash as well as through \nbanking channel were found recorded. But it is pertinent to note that \nthe Hazir Johri Software was found and seized from the premises of \nJBL at the time of its search under section 132 of the Act. Hence \nthe presumption under section 292C of the Act would apply to JBL \nand not to the assessee. Eventhough the proceedings stood initiated \nunder section 153C of the Act on the assessee, the basic \npresumption under section 292C of the Act would only be on JBL. \nThe assessee on its part had categorically denied the transactions \nreflected in the said HazirJohri Software by clearly stating that the \nentries found thereon contains transactions of various other \nunrelated parties with the assessee and that since assessee has \nintroduced Shri Subodh Kumar Jain (Broker) to JBL, EktaSoni \n(Executive Assistant of JBL) had recorded all the transactions \nagainst assessee‟s name. Admittedly, the entries reflected in the \nsaid software pertains to other unrelated parties with the assessee. \nAdmittedly, the said ledger is a combined ledger account of various \ntransactions pertaining to other unrelated parties with the assessee \nand contains few transactions pertaining to the assessee. However, \nthere is no concrete material brought on record by the lower \nauthorities to implead assessee with all those transactions. Even for \n\n \n7 ITA Nos. 1903, 1904, 1905, 1893 & 1894/Del/2022 \n \n \nSumitraYadav and Ors \n \nthe transactions where assessee’s name was mentioned, the \nrevenue was not able to bring any corroborative evidence to prove \nthe nature of such transaction. Hence it could be safely concluded \nthat the assessee had given a plausible explanation about the \ncontents of the said software. Furthermore, as rightly pointed out by \nthe Ld.AR, there is no corroboration of those entries with the bills / \nvouchers , sales, stock registers etc, showing the cash sales to prove \nthat the alleged cash sales belong to the assessee firm. Hence those \nentries cannot be relied upon for making an addition in the hands of \nthe assessee. \n28. We also find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the \ncase of Anoop Kumar Soni vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1641/Del/2021 \ndated 2.8.2023, wherein while adjudicating almost similar facts \nrelated to search on JBL, the Tribunal held that since the ledger \nfound during the search „AP‟ contains the entries of parties other \nthan assessee, then said ledger cannot be said to be belonging to \nassessee and addition made on the basis of assumption was \ndeleted. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal in this \nregard are as under:- \n\"30. The banking transactions pertaining to other entities such \nas Aarthav Gems & Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Surasti Overseas Pvt. \nLtd., M/s Saumya Bullion &Jewellers were also recorded in the \naccount AP whereas it had nothing to do with the assessee. In \nthe Remand Report dated 02.08.2021 the Assessing Officer \nverified all these banking transactions and accepted the \ncontentions of the assessee. In other words, it was verified by \nthe Assessing Officer that some of the banking transactions \nrecorded in the account AP pertain to other entities and not the \nassessee. Only 23% of the total banking transactions pertain to \nassessee and remaining 77% are between JBL and other \nparties. In the facts of the assessee's corroboration is missing. \nIt is for the searched party i.e. JBL to explain the contents of \nmaterial recovered from his premises. In case the searched \nparty states that the material belongs to a third party there has \nto be some connect or corroboration with the third party. On the \nfacts of the present case there is no direct evidence to establish \nthat the account AP belongs to AnoopSoni. The entire action is \nbased \non \npresumptions \nmade \nby \nthe \nA.O. \nNotably, \nsimultaneous search action on 05.01.2017 on AnoopSoni did \nnot detect any material or evidence to establish or even suggest \nthat he was engaged in unaccounted and undisclosed \ntransactions involving sale/purchase of gold in cash outside \nbooks of accounts. \n\n \n8 ITA Nos. 1903, 1904, 1905, 1893 & 1894/Del/2022 \n \n \nSumitraYadav and Ors \n \n31. The entire addition by treating the account AP as belonging to \nAnoopSoni has been made on the basis of presumption drawn and \nthe statement of Shri Parul Ahluwalia. However, statement of the \nassessee has not been recorded on this issue either at the time of \nsearch, post search inquiries or even during the assessment \nproceedings. A careful examination of the account AP as reproduced \nin the assessment order would reveal that in the remarks column \nvarious acronyms have been used against different transactions \nsuch as JD, KCX, RBG Overseas, KMTY, Oven AJ, JBL Coins, Oppo \nMobile, Satia, Ishaan, Anshul, Vinod 8676, Guddu etc. These \nabbreviations show that the transaction recorded is neither through \nbank nor cash because since specific acronyms have been used, \nthese transactions cannot be inferred to be pertaining to the \nassessee even if it is presumed with account AP belongs to the \nassessee. \n32. Hence, keeping in view, the entire factual matrix of the case, we \nhold that no addition is warranted in the case of the assessee. In the \nresult, the peak credit theory set out by the ld. CIT(A) would also \nbecome infructuous. The appeals of the assessee on this ground are \nallowed and accordingly the appeals of the revenue are liable to be \ndismissed.\" \n29. Similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Surender \nKumar Jain in ITA No. 1314/Del/2023 dated 07.03.2024 arising out \nof search in the JBL, wherein it was held that entries in the \nHajirJohri ledger of M/s. JBL, supposedly involving M/s. S.K. Impex, \ndo not prove actual transactions without corroborative evidence such \nas bills or invoices. The additions are based on conjecture and the \nstatement of Mr. Parul Ahluwalia lacking supporting evidence was \ndeleted. The relevant findings of the said decision are as under:- \n\"9. We have given our careful thought to the submission of the \nparties and perused the records. The facts are not in dispute. \nDuring assessment proceedings the common plea of the \nassessee in both the AY(s) was that merely entries found in the \nHajirJohri ledger of M/s. JBL supposedly in the name of M/s. \nS.K. Impex, the proprietary concern of the assessee does not \ntantamount to actual transactions having taken place in the \nabsence of any corroborative evidence such as bills, invoices, \nchallans etc. There is no linking in the order of the Ld. \nAO/CIT(A) that the alleged cash transactions are substantiated \nby any supporting evidence as claimed by the assessee. On the \ncontrary, the impugned additions are based purely on \nconjectures and surmises solely relying on the statement of Ms. \nParul Ahluwalia, Director and former employee of M/s. JBL, the \n\n \n9 ITA Nos. 1903, 1904, 1905, 1893 & 1894/Del/2022 \n \n \nSumitraYadav and Ors \n \nentity subjected to search operation during which her statement \nwas recorded. The Ld. AR submitted before us that Ms. Parul \nAhluwalia nowhere in her statement identified that alleged \ncash transactions related to the assessee. No specific questions \nin this regard were asked from her. Nothing is forthcoming from \nthe side of the Revenue to controvert the above pleadings of the \nassessee.\" \n30. In view of the above observations and respectfully following the \njudicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that no \naddition could be made in the hands of the assessee by placing any \nreliance on HazirJohri Software. Accordingly, the grounds raised by \nthe assessee are allowed.” \n7. \nBy respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal in thecase of \nSmt. Nirmal Uppal(supra) and M/s Sanmati Jewellers (supra), we delete \nthe respective additions made in the hand of the Assessees relying on \nHazir Johri Software. Accordingly, Grounds of Appeal of the Assessees in \nall the Appeals are allowed. \n \n8. \nIn the result, Appeal of the Assessees in ITA Nos. 1903/Del/2022, \n1904/Del/2022, 1905/Del/2022, 1893/Del/2022 and 1894/Del/2022 \nare allowed. \nOrder pronounced in the open court on 21st March, 2025 \n Sd/- \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSd/- \n(BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) \n \n (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) \n ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER \nDate:- 21 .03.2025 \nR.N, Sr.P.S* \n \n \n \n \n\n \n10 ITA Nos. 1903, 1904, 1905, 1893 & 1894/Del/2022 \n \n \nSumitraYadav and Ors \n \n \nCopy forwarded to: \n1. \nAppellant \n2. \nRespondent \n3. \nCIT \n4. \nCIT(Appeals) \n5. \nDR: ITAT \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \n \n \n ITAT, NEW DELHI \n \n \n \n \n \n"