TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 25,20,884/- as income from undisclosed sources which was added by the ACIT, Central Circle-9, New Delhi in as much as the entire addition is unwarranted, based on surmises and conjectures, without any basis, illegal and thus, requires to be deleted in toto. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the addition of Rs. 25,20,884/- has been made without any positive 8s cogent evidence and rather on irrelevant facts. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the Ld. AO has not considered the evidences produced by the appellant which clearly establishes that no cash payment was made by the appellant. 4. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment proceeding, the assessee denied of having made any cash payment. The Assessing Officer observed that name of the another purchaser i.e. Sh. I. E. Soomar , who booked office space in the same project, appearing in the Excel sheet seized, accepted the cash component of sales amounting to Rs. 6.64 crores and paid the taxes on the same. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to adduce any evidence of its claim of no cash investment and also in view of the surrendered made by Sh. I. E. Shoomar on the basis of similar evidences, he held the cash investment of Rs. 25,20,884/- as made out by the assessee out of undisclosed income and accordingly, he made the addition. Before the Ld. CIT-(A), the assessee made detailed submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rest. In view of the discussion made in the impugned order, the Ld. CIT-(A) upheld the addition. 3. In all the grounds of the appeal, the only issue involved is sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,20,884/- for alleged cash component appearing in the Excel sheets seized from the premises of M/s AEZ group. Thus, all the grounds are heard together. 4. The Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that no evidence supporting the case of the Revenue i.e. investment in cash in the "Indirapuram Habitat Centre", was found or seized from the premises of the assessee and, thus, there being no incriminating document unearthed during the search, no addition could have been made in the case of the assessee. He further submitted that similar addition of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amily controlling the assessee AOP, were found and seized. He referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukundray K. Shah, reported in 290 ITR 433, wherein it was held that addition could be made in block assessment, even if, addition arise out of enquiry related to source of investment in disclosed investment, if details of such disclosed investment were found during search. 6. Without prejudice to above submission, the Ld. CIT(DR) also submitted that on the basis of the evidence seized during search dated 17/08/2011 in the case of AEZ group, the Department could have issued notice under section 148 of the Act as the time limit was available till 31/03/2003. According to him, this case is similar to cases where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on the same; (iii) the said hard disc cannot be relied upon in part as the assessee has admitted the payment through cheque but denied the cash payment shown therein etc. In our view, a huge addition of Rs. 3,21,00,000 cannot be made in a casual manner without having corroborative evidence in support. It is a prevailing practice in the dealings of immoveable properties that cash amount, if any, out of the agreed consideration is paid during the course of execution/registration of the sale deed and admittedly in the present case no sale deed or other mode of transfer has been effected. Merely, because name of the assessee is appearing in the said hard disc and amongst other investors are investor Shri I.E. Soomar appearing in the said hard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee and in absence of abatement of assessment on the date of search, cannot be made in the present case as per the above cited decisions including the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra). Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 153 A and authorities below were also not justified in making and sustaining the addition in question merely on the basis of a hard disc found during the course of search at the premises of Aerens Group without any corroborative evidence in support. We thus hold that the assessee/appellant succeeds on both the above issues i.e. on validity of assumption of jurisdi....