IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.164/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2017–18)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–2(1), Nagpur v/s M/s. Metrocity Homes

11A, Ground Floor, Khare Town Near Dhanwantari Hospital ……………. Respondent Dharampeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAUFM9880A Assessee by : Shri Suren Duragkar a/w Ms. Hemmani Duragkar Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 25/11/2024 Date of Order – 21/01/2025

O R D E R

PER K.M. ROY, A.M.

Captioned appeal by the Revenue is against the impugned order dated

31/03/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.

2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:–

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,73,500/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No. B-36, and the said document have the evidentiary value.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No. B - 1/5 and the said document have the evidentiary value.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No. B - 1/16 and the said document have the evidentiary value.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37 ,45,500/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No. B - 2/1 and the said document have the evidentiary value.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 71 ,93,666/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No. B - 2/19 and the said document have the evidentiary value.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 22 ,50,000/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No. B-2/21, and the said document have the evidentiary value.

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No. B-2/30, and the said document have the evidentiary value.

8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the AO which was based on the seized Document No. B-2/30, and the said document have the evidentiary value.

9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that during the course of search/survey loose paper or any incriminating documents hold that high value and the same would be treated as base of making any addition.

10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that noting on the loose paper done by the employee of the assesee i.e. M/s Metrocity Homes and the onus to explain the noting on the loose paper lies on the assessee.

11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that seized documents itself act as a document which has evidentiary value and is sufficient to take it as evidence against the assessee.

12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, while deleting the addition mentioned in Ground No. 1 to 6, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the agreement to sale observed by the AO is unregistered document ignoring finding given the AO on page 6 of the assessment order that the agreement to sale consists of some payment through cheque which are also part of the final sale deed as such the agreement to sale reflect the correct amount of transaction and prove that the assessee has received on money in th