TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal") in ITA No.495/Ahd/2016, by proposing the following two questions stated to be substantial questions of law: "[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts by upholding the decision of CIT(A) of deletion of disallowances amounting to Rs. 2,07,81,390/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash payment made by assessee? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on facts in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs V C Shukla without appreciating that the said judgment did not apply to the factual aspect of the present case?" 2. The assessment year is 2007-08 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2006-07. 3. In this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de the survey numbers of the land in question and the corresponding areas along with other details which match with the land dealings pertaining to the assessee. It was submitted that the payment of Rs. 14,22,000/- with respect to survey No.1244, admeasuring 10940 square metres tallies with the cheque amount in the bank statement of the assessee, and, therefore, when the amounts paid through the cheques as well as the land details tally with the recorded transactions made by the land broker with the assessee, the genuineness of recording on the paper cannot be doubted. It was submitted that in these circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in holding such documents cannot be considered as conclusive evidence to make addition towards un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he seized document and/or subsequent investigation done. In the light of the above findings recorded by him, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that no adverse inference is possible to be drawn as cited by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, deleted the addition of Rs. 2,07,81,390/-. 7. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has observed thus: "5. We have gone through the relevant record and the impugned order. In this case, a search was carried out in the case of Shri Pareshbhai Babubhai Patel, Land Broker on 23.05.2008. During the course of proceedings, certain documents/loose paper were found and seized as per Annexure A-5 Pages 72 & 73. It was noticed from these pages that the following land transaction was carried ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion, such document has to be corroborated by any evidence sustainable in the eyes of law. As we can see in these documents, no signature and parties name have been mentioned, therefore, in our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) has passed detailed and reasoned order. Therefore, we are not incline to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)." 8. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the document in question does not contain any signature and date, and the word "cash" is nowhere mentioned on the seized document. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. v. V.C. Shukla, the Tribunal has held that it is not permissible to....