TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f consideration towards purchase of land at village Kharigaon, Taluka & Dist. Thane from Shri. Naresh Motiram Gouri and others, not appreciating the valid explanation of your appellant which was duly supported by seized/impounded documents and evidences available in the course of asst. proceedings. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,50,OO,OOOI- as undisclosed investment in payment of consideration to Shri. Mukund Keni towards purchase of his rights in land at village Kharigaon, Taluka & Dist. Thane, not appreciating the valid explanation of your appellant which was further supported by evidences submitted in the course of asst. proceedings. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n further appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of the ld. Representatives of the parties. The Ld. AR of the assessee has invited our attention to the detailed submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) which have also been reproduced in the impugned order and has explained that Shri. Naresh Gauri and 12 others were the owners of the said land. Around July, 2005, they entered into an agreement to sell this land to Mukund Kini of M/s. Mandar Constructions for a total consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs. However, transaction could not be completed. Subsequently, in July 2008, the assessee decided to acquire this land from Gauri Family and negotiations were in progress through a group of brokers. At one stage of negotiations, the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pages 115 to 147 of paper book). On page 119, the agreement mentions about reservations by fire brigade, Govt. work, D.P. Road, unauthorized use and occupation by Shri. Sharad Bubera and others as well as part of the land being in occupation of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran. As per this registered agreement, the actual consideration for which the assessee was to acquire the land was Rs. 3.57 Crores only . The Ld. AR has thus contended that the assessee had acquired the land for 3.57 Crs only from Shri Motiram Gouri and 12 others and no part of the consideration was paid in cash to any person. The Ld. AR has further submitted that even the explanation for final settlement of consideration at Rs. 3,57,00,000/- was corroborated by the landow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roposed transfer of his interest in the land to the assessee. The Ld. AR, has thus submitted that no cash payment has ever been paid to the owners of the land as alleged by the AO. 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. The copy of the first draft agreement has been placed on the file. Admittedly, there aren't any signatures of any of the parties on the alleged draft agreement found during the course of search and seizure action. The figure of Rs. 5.10 crores written as consideration has been stuck off and even the figure of Rs. 1.53 crores written on the seized lose paper has also been struck off.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tigation wing could not extract any word from the said seller of the land about receipt of any cash in relation to sale transaction in question. The said statement has also been signed by the other sellers of the land confirming that what has been recorded therein was correct. The explanation offered by the assessee has been fully corroborated by the statement of the sellers. Except the above stated unsigned draft document relied upon by the AO, the figures mentioned therein had also been struck off, no other incriminating material was found during the course of search. Even the another draft agreement was also found on which the figures exactly tallied with the sale deed which was registered with the registering authority. It is also not t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....figures written on which had been struck off, cannot be a basis of addition in this case, especially in the absence of any other incriminating or corroborating evidence of exchange of cash. 7. So far as the addition on the basis of loose paper, copy of which has been placed on page 148 of the paper Book, in relation to payment made to Sh. Mukund keni is concerned, the notable fact is that it has been mentioned in the lose papers that Rs. 60 lakh was paid by cheque and the other figures mentioned were Rs. 20 lakh by cheque and Rs. 1.50 crore by cash. The stand of the Assessing Officer has been that the amount of Rs. 1.50 crore was paid in cash. However, the Assessing Officer even could not prove the payment of Rs. 20 lakh which was also men....