2016 (6) TMI 980

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' in IT(SS)A No.16/Ahd/2005 and IT(SS)A No.337/Ahd/2004 whereby the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and that of the Revenue was dismissed. 3. Both these Tax Appeals were admitted in terms of the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that addition of Rs. 14,64,79,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents seized during the course of search / survey, is not sustainable ?" 4. The facts in brief are that on 17.07.2002 a search u/s.132(1) of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee. At the end of search, the raiding party seized several documents, cash and o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer is quite different in comparison to his jurisdiction while making assessment u/s.143(3), 144 or even 147 of the Act. The basis difference between the two assessments is that while computing undisclosed income of the block period, the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the evidence, books of accounts or any other document/s found and seized at the time of search or information available with him which are related to such documents / books of accounts. 9. The raiding party found the following documents at the time of search: (a) Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (b) Wills (c) Affidavits (d) Receipt of Payment (e) Possession Receipt (f) Agreements for Sale (g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as the consequential Affidavits, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to compute the purchase price of lands mentioned in the Agreements for Sale, on the basis of rates mentioned in the Memorandum of Understandings. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the lower appellate authority, viz. CIT(A), was justified in deleting the undisclosed income estimated by the Assessing Officer while presuming the rates of lands covered by the Agreements for Sale on the basis of rates of land mentioned in the MoU of respective sellers. 10. Now, coming to the valuation of lands covered by MoUs estimated by the Assessing Officer, we are of the view that the Affidavits with respects to lands covered by these three MoUs having been found during the s....