आयकर अपील(cid:9)य अ(cid:10)धकरण, ‘बी’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, चे(cid:14)नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:21)ी जॉज (cid:24) जॉज (cid:24) के , उपा(cid:26)य(cid:27) एव ं (cid:21)ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद%य के सम(cid:27) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1630/Chny/2025 ’नधा(cid:24)रण वष (cid:24) / Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1630/Chny/2025 ’नधा(cid:24)रण वष (cid:24) / Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1630/Chny/2025 ’नधा(cid:24)रण वष (cid:24) / Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1630/Chny/2025 ’नधा(cid:24)रण वष (cid:24) / Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1630/Chny/2025 ’नधा(cid:24)रण वष (cid:24) / Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1630/Chny/2025 ’नधा(cid:24)रण वष (cid:24) / Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1630/Chny/2025 ’नधा(cid:24)रण वष (cid:24) / Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1630/Chny/2025 ’नधा(cid:24)रण वष (cid:24) / Assessment Year: 2013-14 अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A.

*+यथ) क, ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T.

सुनवाई क, तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा क, तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:

The present appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dated

21.03.2015 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”], arising out of the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy [hereinafter referred to as “the AO”] u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year 2013–14.

2. We find that the appeal is filed with a delay of 3 days. The AO filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons for belated filing of the appeal. On hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the Revenue are bonafide and no latches can be attributed to them. Hence, the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the case is adjudicated on merits.

3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10 Crores made on account unexplained Money u/s.69A of the Act by observing that loose sheets found during the course of search showing the unaccounted cash deposits made by the partners in the firm as a defective document by not taking cognizance of Sec.292C(1) which reads, ‘Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed – (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true.

3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee by observing that material found in a third party premise was not in the handwriting of the assessee thereby ignoring section 101 of the Evidence Act 1872, which reads “Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exists”.

4. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to observe that the receipts and payments have been recorded on day-to-day basis in the seized material meticulously, the day-wise/page-wise total was also found therein & the incriminating material seized satisfies the meaning of “book of account’ as per the provisions of Sec.34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 38 Taxman 190 (Supreme Court) has held that, whenever a need arises, the tax authorities can invoke the