TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act that there was no money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or books of account or documents seized which are belonging or belonged to the appellant and which disclosed that the appellant had incurred unaccounted expenditure. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition on account of alleged unexplained expenditure in lands u/s.69C of the Act, ignoring the explanation of seized material and appellant's reliance of various decisions. It is prayed that the addition on account of alleged unexplained expenditure of Rs. 3,83,79,300/- may be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in bringing new evidences of Pathik Construction and Sh. Sunil Gulati on record and discussing the same in the appellate order even though the same has no connection with the facts of the appellant. The learned A.O. has also made no reference of these evidences while reaching its conclusion in the assessment order. These evidences are, therefore, irrelevant and out of context so far as the appellant is concerned. It is prayed that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. While coming to the above conclusion, the CIT(A) relied on the decision of Mumbai in the case of Hiralal Maganlal & Co Vs. DCIT reported in 96 ITD 113 (Mum)/(2005) 97 TTJ (Mum) 377. 5. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal with the grounds mentioned above. 6. Before us, on the said addition, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is one of the aggregators of land for Jai Corp. Ltd. M/s.Jai Corp. Ltd. has a project of establishing a SEZ. During the search action, the seized documents indicating the cash payments in connection with the said purchase of the lands were discovered. Shri Dilip Dherai, who is a Director of Jai Corp Ltd. gave a statement offering the said cash payments as undisclosed income of Jai Corp. Ltd. Subsequently, the statement was retracted. As per the said documents, Rs. 45 crores was paid to land aggregators, which, inturn, was paid in cash to the land owners by the land aggregators. Assessees share works out to 12% of the same. In all these 62 cases, the assessments were made u/s.153C of the Act making similar addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be treated that the first statement was involuntary or unlawfully obtained. It is only for the maker of the statement who alleges inducement, threat, promise etc. to establish that such improper means has been adopted'. Ld. DR prayed for confirming the order of CIT(A). 9. We heard both the parties on the technical issue of "belongingness" of the seized papers and making of additions based on such papers if they are sustainable or not. Ground No.2 of the appeal is relevant. Further, we find that it is an admitted fact that the assessee is part of the whole group of 62 land aggregators for Jai Corp Ltd. and assessee's name appears in the seized document. Further also we find that the jurisdictional High Court as well as Supreme Court in the cases M/s. Avkash Land Reality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and others and in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Ambit Realty Pvt. Ltd., held that such documents cannot be said belonging to the assessee and the said judgments was given on the similar facts. 9.1 We find the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra) approved the finding given by the Tribunal and it is in favour of the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal concluded that the allegations made by the authorities are not supported by actual cash passing hands. The entire decision is based on the seized documents and no material has been referred which would conclusively show that huge amounts revealed from the seized documents are transferred from one side to another. In that regard, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not bring on record a single statement of the vendors of the land in different villages. None of the sellers has been examined to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that extra cash has actually changed hands. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal found that on both counts, namely, the legal issue, as also merits, the additions cannot be sustained. Eventually, the Tribunal held in paragraph 25 (page 188) as under : .................... .................... 22. We do not think that this case is any different from the one considered by the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Arpit Land Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Ambit Reality Pvt. Ltd. The Assessment Year in the case of M/s. Arpit Land Pvt. Ltd. was 2008-09 and in the case of M/s. Ambit Reality Pvt. Ltd., it was 2007-08. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For the sake of completeness, we proceed to extract the relevant paras from the said judgment : "6. We note that in terms of Section 153C of the Act at the relevant time, i.e. prior to Ist June, 2015 the proceedings under section 153C of the Act could only be initiated/proceeded against a party - assessee if the document seized during the search and seizure proceedings of another person belonged to the party - assessee concerned. The impugned order records a finding of fact that the seized documents which formed the basis of initiation of proceedings against the respondent assessee do not belong to it. This finding of fact has not been shown to us to be incorrect. Further, the impugned order placed reliance upon a decision of Gujarat High Court in the Vijaybhai Chandrani Vs. ACIT 333 ITR page 436 which records that the condition precedent for issuing notice under section 153C of the Act is that the document found during search proceedings should belong to assessee to whom notice is issued under section 153C of the Act. It was fairly pointed out to us by Mr. Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent - assessee that the above decision was reversed by the....