2014 (4) TMI 1125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hort cause title. Since similar issues are involved in all these appeals, the same are heard together and disposed off by this common order. 2. The issue involved in all the 14 appeals pertains to the additions made by way of estimating the additional brokerage income against the assesses, namely Shri Rajeev C. Batra, Shri Karan P. Batra, Shri Chaturbhuj T. Batra and Shri Premkumar T. Batra, on the basis of the entries contained in the seized materials at page no. 8 of Annexure A-1 and page no. 81 of the Annexure 3. 3. Briefly stated, the assessees are members of Batra Groups who are engaged in civil constructions and real estate brokers and the said group was covered u. 132 of the Income-tax Act on 18.01.2007. During the course of se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the books which varies from 30% to 70%. The AO was of the opinion that the Batra family must have received 1% brokerage on unrecorded part of the sale consideration. Therefore, the AO made an estimate in the brokerage in which the Batra family indulged, having 50% cash component and thereby added another 50% of the brokerage income to the total income of the assessees on estimate basis. While doing so, the AO relied on the entries in the seized paper, page 4 in Annexure A seized from the residence of Shri C.T. Batra during the course of search. The entries found in page no. 8 of Annexure A-1 read as follows:- "1 Regiland BH-5th 70/30 2.55 Cr. With 2 Sommerset 1.55Cr. 800(C) 3 Band Stand Sea facing, 7th floor" ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....06-07. The Ld.CIT(A) further noted that the assessment of income should be made on the basis of evidences collected either during the search or during the assessment proceedings. According to the Ld.CIT(A), there was no evidence to show that any unaccounted brokerage were received during the relevant assessment years. Thus, the estimated additions on brokerage were deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. At the outset, it has been brought to our notice that the cases in hand are squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajeev C. Batra in ITA No. 7772/Mum/2010 for the assessment year 2003-04, wherein similar addition made/confirmed by the AO/CIT(A) on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....R. I find, in para 11.4 of the CIT(A)'s order, the Ld.CIT(A) has mentioned that he was convinced that these seized documents do not indicate any cash component of brokerage received by the assessee. I find despite giving this findings, which are reproduced elsewhere in this order, the CIT(A) sustained the addition on the ground that the appellant was not accounting the brokerage income correctly. This, in my opinion, is uncalled for. It has been held by various judicial pronouncements that presumptions and surmises, however, strong may be cannot be the basis for any addition. (Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775) in the instant case, there is no evidence on record to show that the assessee has received brokerage income....