TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 1112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e outside of books for purchase of plot. It has been further urged that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,77,200/- and Rs. 10,00,000 on account of payment made out of undisclosed sources of income. 3. A search u/s 132 of the IT Act was conducted on Manav Rachna Group at Faridabad on 4.8.2005. During the course of search at the residential premises of Sh. Navneet Jhanb at H.no. 1260, Sector-14, Faridabad, certain documents relating to sale of industrial plots at Village Jharsentli, Distt. Faridabad were found and seized. During the course of enquiries, it was gathered that there was a land at Village Jharsentli which belonged to on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,77,200/-. Assessing Officer found that there was also working of interest to the extent of Rs. 8,45,000/- on the seized documents. Assessee submitted that the notings on loose sheets are mere projection and not actual. Assessing Officer did not accept these submissions and added a sum of Rs. 12,77,200/- as payment of the undisclosed income. 3.1 Further on the basis of notings of loose sheets Assessing Officer has added Rs. 10,00,000/- received interest on the payments made as income of the assessee. 3.2 Upon assessee's appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) elaborately considered the issue. 3.3 As regards the issue of addition of Rs. 46,72,800/-, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held as under:- "Thus, the whole situat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o whom; there is no mention of evidences. It is not coming out who has prepared the papers and these papers belong to whom. Therefore, in view of the recent judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Pradeep Gupta, 303 ITR 95, it is clear that the primary burden of proof is upon the Assessing Officer which he has not discharged with the help of cogent material. In this case, it is seen that the except these documents, which have been discussed above nothing else is brought on record. Nothing is coming out form these documents and nothing is clear what these documents are and even from the perusal of the contents of these documents nothing concrete can be made out. The primary burden was upon the Assessing Officer to show with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. Rather from the rough calculations, at the best an inference could be drawn that the writer of this document has made such planning to pay out some amount on account of principle since the estimated amount of profit has been reduced by the amount of Rs. 12,77,000/-. We can further make an analysis on the basis of scribbling made on the bottom of the page showing some calculations made on the bottom of this page wherein the estimated gross profit and tentative profit has been increased with the amount of interest. It would simply mean showing that the interest was nothing but income of the writer of this document. Thus, the allegation of the Assessing Officer that excess payment was made by the assessee in the form of loan is neither he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal considered the issue and held as under:- "6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the assessment order mentions about the search and seizure operation carried out by the Investigation Wing at the business premises of M/s Manav Rachna Group of Companies on 4.8.2005, wherein it has been claimed that certain incriminating documents were seized which indicated that the assessee company purchased a plot. The plot had been said to be registered for Rs. 1320521/- and the documents seized indicated that assessee has invested Rs. 60,36,000/- in cash for purchase the said land. 6.1 We find that that the Assessing Officer has not brought even a single word regarding the nature of document and how he has conclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is more than what has been disclosed. It is also not the case that unaccounted cash has been found to be paid by the assessee or received by the seller. There is also no statement of the seller on record that he has obtained on money. Under the circumstances, the additions made in this regard is not sustainable. 6.3 In this regard, we place reliance upon the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another 131 ITR 597 (SC), wherein it has been held that the burden of proving is that of Revenue when there is allegation of understatement on concealment in the consideration shown. 6.4 We also place reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. P.V. Kalyanasundara....