TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs 1 crore on account of alleged unexplained investment in land at village Samalkha. The Assessing Officer had also made an addition of Rs 57 lacs on account of alleged unexplained investment in land at Udyog Vihar. Both these additions were deleted, in appeal by the assessee, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The said deletions have been confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order dated 16.12.2010. The revenue, being aggrieved by the said decision, is before us by way of this appeal. 3. During survey operations conducted on 24.01.2006 a document (MoU) between Mr Gian Gupta (the assessee) and one Mrs Jind Singh, resident of C-34, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi was found. The said MoU was in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us does not contain the signature either of the party or any of the witness. Hence, this is only a dumb paper, having no meaning". From the above, it is apparent that while the assessee accepted the position that a cheque of Rs 1 crore was given to Mrs Jind Singh, it is also clear that the transaction did not go through. As a result, the said sum of Rs 1 crore was returned to the assessee. From the statement of the assessee, it is also clear that he had denied having made any payment in cash. It may be relevant to note that Mrs Jind Singh was also examined and she had denied having received cash of Rs 1 crore from the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer took the following view:- "From the statement of Sh. Gian Gupta it becomes am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght out any material on record to prove the transfer of Rs. 1 crore by the assessee to Jind particularly when both have denied the transfer and also the purchase and sale of such land as mentioned in such document which is only a performa document. The performa document does not contain the signatures of both and besides it does not contain the signature of any witnesses. No evidence has been brought on record by the AO that there is any investment and there is any transfer of cash. There is no question of investment when the land has not been transferred and registered in the name of Gian Gupta. On the contrary, the AO himself admits in the assessment order that the addition was made on the basis of assumption. Therefore in my considered o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee with tax on account of unexplained investment, it is the Assessing Officer who ought to have established that land was purchased by the assessee and he failed to disclose the source of such purchase. Instead of discharging this onus, learned Assessing Officer treated a document as gospel truth and tried to put an onus upon the assessee to prove a negative fact which is not permissible in law. Learned First Appellate Authority has rightly considered this aspect and deleted the addition." 6. After having heard the counsel for the parties on this issue of the deletion of the addition of Rs 1 crore on account of the alleged unexplained investment, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax A....