TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the addition of Rs. 25,20,884 has been made without any positive and cogent evi dence and rather on irrelevant facts. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the learned Assess ing Officer has not considered the evidences produced by the appel lant which clearly establishes that no cash payment was made by the appellant. 4. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurispru dence." 3. Consequent to the search conducted in the Aerens group of cases on August 17, 2011, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was also conducted at the premises of the assessee on February 10, 2012. The case of the assessee was centralised on August 5, 2013 and the jurisdiction over the assessee's case was assigned to the Assessing Officer, Central Circle-9, New Delhi. Thereafter, a notice under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued and served upon the assessee on September 5, 2013. In response to the same, the assessee stated that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of material seized, the Assessing Officer opined that the assessee made the above cash payment out of the books of account and treated it as unexplained income of the assessee. However, before adding back the same, vide notice dated February 5, 2014, the Assessing Officer gave an opportunity to the assessee to furnish a reply. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed reply. The Assessing Officer further observed that in the same excel sheet the name of one Sh. I. E. Soomar, E-405, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi also appeared at Sl. No. 39 who admitted that the cash investment of Rs. 6.64 crores being made in the said project, and paid the taxes on the same. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to adduce an iota of evidence in respect of the cash investment of Rs. 25,20,884. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and the surrender made by Sh. I. E. Soomar on the basis of similar evidence, the Assessing Officer opined that the cash investment of Rs. 25,20,884 made by the assessee was out of the income not disclosed by it in its books of account. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the above amount of Rs. 25,20,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer has also made and addition of Rs. 8,925 wrongly mentioned as Rs. 18,925. This addition has been made on the ground that the advertisement expenses incurred by assessee are not allowable. However no document relatable to this disallowance of Rs. 8,925 has been found in search of the assessee. The learned authorised representative submitted that the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and argued that no addition can be made as no incriminating material has been found in the search of the assessee which was submitted before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the addition. 6. The learned authorised representative submitted that in one similar matter namely in the case of Subhash Khattar a similar addition of Rs. 3,21,00,000 has been made by the Revenue on the basis of search conducted at AEZ group and alleged investment in Indrapuram Habitat Center. In that case also two searches were conducted one at the AEZ group on August 17, 2011 and one at Mr. Subhash Khattar on February 10, 2012. This addition was also made in respect of investment in Indrapuram Habitat Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the said project and had paid the taxes 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 hue 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 immovable 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 disc has admitted payment of cash amount, cannot be a basis for arriving at a definite conclusion, in the absence of corrob orative evidence in support, that the assessee had also paid the amount of Rs. 3,21,00,000 in cash. The hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Prem Prakash Nagpal [2013] taxmann.com 353 wherein the Assessing Officer had made certain additions under sectio....