TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- to the seller over and above the sale deed. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in relying on the third party documents and material and cash found during the search of the seller of the property. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in relying on the statement and the assessment of the seller by the violating of the rules of natural justice. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in not considering the cancellation papers found during the search of the seller. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in treating an amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- u/s 69 as income whereas the same is not applicable to the facts of the case. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in completing and confirming the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of the fact that the slip on bundle of notes found elsewhere relate to a bank in which the assessee was having a bank account though admittedly such slip and evidence could not be related to the bank account of the assessee even after enquiry. 8. Confirming the addition of Rs. 8.50 crores made u/s 69 of the Income tax Act, which in fact had no application to the facts of appellant case. 9. Confirming the addition on the basis of opinion of the AO as per para 3 of the order of the CIT (A). 10. Confirming the addition on the basis of without proving the transfer of any cash money by the buyer to the sellers. 11. Ignoring/keeping aside, the statements of the sellers recorded behind the back of the appellant of which even copies were not supplied to the appellant. 12. Ignoring the fact that the assessee company had been incorporate in 31ST March 2003, but no business whatsoever had been done by the assessee company till the purchase of property in question & there was absolutely no evidence even to presume that assessee company was having any cash funds. 13. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the penalty proceedings. 4. Whether in view of the above position of law CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty by ignoring tire direct evidence of "Sale-cum-receipt' agreement found and which was executed by the same vendor and vendee for the same property ur.der their respective signatures signifying the value of property under consideration, und also other circumstantial evidence in the form of proportionate share of on-money found in individual lockers, opening and operations of lockers after the date execution of sole deed etc. 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be vacated and the assessment order passed by the A.O. be restored." 3. ITA Nos. 1268 & 1269/DEL/2009 are quantum appeals filed by the assessees and ITA Nos. 3747 & 3748/DEL/2011 are penalty appeals filed by the Revenue. The brief facts are narrated herewith in common as the issues in quantum and penalty appeal are identical for both the assessees. 4. The property No. 2, Underhill Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi was owned by four Jain brothers, namely Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Shri Deepak Kumar Jain, Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain and Shri Vipin Kumar Jain. The adjacent portion of land belonged to one Smt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the bank lockers of the vendors, who made the statement that the same was received from the assessee as "on-money". It is a common practice that the property is registered on the circle rate and remaining money is paid as "on-money". But in the absence of any evidence/document, the same cannot be applied by closing of the eye. There must be evidence on record to prove that "on-money" was received from the assessee. Assessees have purchased the property from the vendors. The vendors were not having sufficient source of income to accumulate the huge amount, which was recovered from the lockers alongwith the bank slips of Punjab National Bank. The AO has not examined the accounts especially withdrawal of the assessees in a proper manner. In these circumstances, we are of the view, that the matter needs deep investigation. Whether opportunity to cross-examine the vendors can make any difference, specially when assessees will always deny and vendors will endorse their statement. This aspect was not examined either by the Tribunal or by the lower authorities. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in the light of the above ....