TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ential premises of Shri. Nareesh Gupta who is a deed writer and an advocate by profession. As per agreement to sell found in the said hard disc, Assessee and his Wife have given Rs. 1 Crore in cash to M/s. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. on account of purchase of a property at E-108, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi, which fact is mentioned in the report received from Investigation Wing. Explanation of assessee was called for in which he is denied to have made any cash payment. The A.O. considering the agreement to sell made the addition of Rs. 1 crore under section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal of assessee has been dismissed. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and referred to PB-28 which is reasons for reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. He has referred to PB-92 which is copy of the agreement to sell found during the course of search from third party which is not signed by the assessee. He has submitted that unsigned document have been found during the course of sea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the scrutiny assessment proceedings, for A.Y. 2009-10, AR Sh. Anil Kumar Chandra in his reply dated 02-12-2016, stated that the assessee's wife, Mrs. Madhu Gupta, sold her property at G-1405, C.R. Park. New Delhi - 110019 on 13-08-2009 which falls under Asstt Year 2010-11. The said property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1 crore out of which she invested Rs. 94,50,000' in another property namely First Floor, at E-108, Greater Kailash Part II and claimed deduction u/s. 54. Assessee Sh. Balraj Gupta S/o late Shri Om Prakash and Mrs. Madhu Gupta w/o Dr. Balraj Gupta were the equal share holder of the ownership of the said property at First Floor, at E-108, Greater Kailash Part 11, New Delhi in which Mrs. Madhu Gupta W/o Dr. Balraj Gupta, and Sh. Balraj Gupta S/o late Shri Om Prakash, hold 30% share each. Also, in the agreement to sell, provided by Central Circle-26, New Delhi, there were two payments by cheque on 22-07-2009 and 02-08-2009, falling in the F.Y. 2009-10. In the purchase deed executed on 26/08/2009, the payment details include three cheque payments dated 22-07-2009, 02-08-2009 and 26/08/2009, which are also in the duration of F.Y. 2009-10 (A.Y: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to believe that assessee has paid any amount in cash to M/s. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd., as is mentioned in the reasons. Thus, there was no reason for the A.O. to record that there is an income escaped assessment on account of the fact mentioned in the agreement to sell. The ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Shri Krishan Gopal vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi in paras 4 to 6 held as under : "4. I have considered rival submissions. It is well settled law that validity of the reassessment u/s 147/148 to be considered with reference to the reasons recorded by the AO. The assessee has filed copy of the reasons recorded u/s 147 of the I.T. Act at page 116 of the paper book. The same is reproduced as under :- "Reasons for Action under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2005-06 in the case of Shri Krishan Gopal Prop. M/s. Kay Pee Lock Ind. 221 Teliwari, Delhi - 110 006. Date : 21.3.2012 The assessee filed a return of income on 2005 declaring total income of Rs. 61,288/-. As per information received the assessee has entered into an agreement to sell a property bearing No. 65/59, New Rohtak Road for a consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/- whereas the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Smt. K.C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 in which it was held that "unless it is proved that the agreement was acted upon and unless the amount stated in the agreement was paid for the sale, one can not come to the conclusion that the price mentioned in the sale deed is not correct. On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that on the basis of the photo copy of the receipt, prima facie case was made out for reopening of the assessment. Assessee did not raise objection to reassessment proceedings and that the photocopy of documents which is admissible as secondary evidence. 6. After considering rival submissions, it is clear that the revenue department was having only one photo copy of the bayana receipt and on that basis the reassessment of the assessee have been made. However in the reasons recorded, the AO has not explained the source of the information received for entering into an agreement to sell for a sum of Rs. 40 lacs and the AO has not verified the photo copy of the receipt before recording reasons and it is not clarified as to where is the original receipt and no persons mentioned in the photocopy receipt have been examined. Thus before recording the reasons for ....