TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Gurgaon, Haryana. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the transaction recorded in the seized document was related to the purchase of property B-1/238, GF & FF, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi from M/s Chawla Buildwell P. Ltd. As against this, the contention of the assessee was that he had not entered into any such transaction and further that in the seized document there was no identity of the person to whom the alleged payment/s were stated to have been made by the assessee and that there were no details of the property for which the payment was alleged to have been made. It was also the contention of the assessee that there no sale consideration was stated in the said seized document and further that there is was neither any signature of the buyer/seller nor signature/s of any witness/es on the said document. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 2,09,50,000/- as unexplained investment by holding that the property transaction was executed for a total amount of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- out of which Rs. 49,50,000/- was paid in cheque and the balance i.e. Rs. 2,09,50,000/- was paid in cash which he tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....read with section 292C of the Act were applicable in this case and onus was on the assessee to rebut the presumption of section 132(4A) as this document had been found from the possession of the assessee. The Ld. DR also place reliance on the following judicial precedents in support of the contentions of the Revenue as under:- 1. CIT Vs. Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jhankhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs. CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Patna)/[2016] 290 CTR 450 (Patna) 6. Baldev Raj Vs. CIT [2010] 2 taxmann.com 335 (Punjab & Haryana) 4.0 In response, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition per se was untenable in law as this document was not found during the course of the search carried out in the premises of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presumption under section 132(4A) read with section 292C was not applicable as this document was not found in the possession or control of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that for applying this presumption, it was an essential condition that the document found was in the possession or control of such person and further that this being a deeming fiction it has to be strictly construed and cannot be expanded so as to apply it to a document which has not been found in possession or control of such person. The Ld. AR reiterated that this document was not found in the course of the search on the assessee as was evident from the assessment order whereby it has been clearly stated that this document was found from premises 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon and not from the residence of the assessee where the search was carried out. 4.4 The Ld. AR further submitted that the AO had not considered the sale deed on the basis of which a correlation is being made out. It was submitted that this sale deed stands in joint name/s and that in case the Assessing Officer was to draw an adverse inference, he should have looked at the sale deed which is in two names, namely Mrs. Aroma Jain and M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout carrying out any verification and further that in any case the addition of the entire amount in the hands of the assessee was unsustainable as the property had been purchased by two persons. 5.1 We have perused the said seized document and on going through this document we do find that there are certain figures stated therein and that the name 'Chawla Ji' is also stated therein. It is also a matter of record that the assessee, along with Mrs. Aroma Jain, has purchased a property from M/s Chawla Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Thus, there can indeed be an inference as to that what is recorded in the seized document may be relatable to property purchased. However, to reach such a conclusion, one needs to undertake verification, which, unfortunately, has not been done in this case. We also note from this document that it is not clear as to how the AO worked out the figure of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- as being the value of total consideration. It is equally surprising that the AO did not make any enquiry from the seller. Nor any action apparently has been taken against the seller. We are also in agreement with alternative contention of the Ld. AR that this property has been purchased in joint-....