TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that in this case a search and seizure operation was carried out on the assessee on 10.02.2011. Consequent, to that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the document identified as 'MA-7/Annx-A-12/Page 104 and 103' found and seized from the premises 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase - V, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the Assessing Officer had made assumptions and drawn inferences without carrying out any investigation or verification from the alleged seller. 2.2 The Ld. CIT (A) rejected the legal contention of the assessee that in the absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search on the assessee, the addition made by the AO was untenable. However, on facts the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition by holding that assessee had filed his explanation and the AO had rejected the same without bringing on record some corroborative evidence to substantiate his allegation. 2.3 Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before the ITAT and has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 assessee as was evident from the assessment order wherein the Assessing Officer, on page 2 of the assessment order itself ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. The Ld. AR emphasized that the Assessing Officer had not carried out any verification from M/s Chawla Buildwell P. Ltd. The Ld. AR submitted that on going through the assessment order, it was very much evident that no verification had been carried out from the seller and further that there was no statement of the seller against the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in holding that no corroborative evidences had been brought on record by the AO. It was also pointed out by the Ld. AR that no corresponding addition had been made in the hands of the seller nor any action had been initiated against the seller. 4.2 The Ld. AR also submitted that the contention of the Ld. DR on section 132(4A) was not tenable. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee. It was submitted that no statements were recorded either in the case of the assessee or in the case of Mrs. Aroma Jain which could substantiate the view of the AO. The Ld. AR submitted that, therefore, in absence of any corroborative material, it was incorrect on the part of the AO to assume that the entire payment had been made by the assessee. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the record. On going through the same, we note that the AO has drawn an adverse inference on a document found and seized from the premises 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon. The AO has held that the document seized is relatable to a property purchased by the assessee along with Mrs. Aroma Jain. The AO, on the basis of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 ....