TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessee : Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate For the Revenue : Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT ORDER PER BENCH: The above captioned appeals are filed against the following orders of the ld. CIT(A): S No ITANo. Name CIT(A) order date Appeal filed by the Revenues or assessee 1 & 2 ITA(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 & CO NO.76/Ind/2014 Mukesh Sharma 30.01.2013 Revenue & Assessee 3 ITANo.189/Ind/2013 Vinod Vaish 31.01.2013 Revenue 4 ITANo.699/Ind/2016 Suresh Kumar Upadhya 22.03.2016 Assessee 5 ITANo.700/Ind/2016 Chandra Kumar Sharma 22.03.2016 Assessee 6 ITANo.701/Ind/2016 Sanjay Kumar Sahu 22.03.2016 Assessee 7 ITANo.702/Ind/2016 Sukhdev Singh Dhariwal 22.03.2016 Assessee 8 ITANo.703/Ind/2016 Khemraj Singh Chauhan 22.03.2016 Assessee 9 ITANo.704/Ind/2016 Kamlesh Kumar Choudhary 22.03.2016 Assessee 10 ITANO.705/Ind/2016 Santosh Kumar Sharma 22.03.2016 Assessee 11 ITA No.706/Ind/2016 Lalta Prasad Choudhary 22.03.2016 Assessee 12 ITANo.707/Ind/2016 Pradeep Kumar Sharma 22.03.2016 Assessee 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,00,000 Total Income Rounded Off; 7,79,03,479 7,79,03,480 Agricultural income 252500 5. Against various additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO) assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 6. Now the revenue is in appeal against the addition deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and assessee has filed cross objection raising following grounds: I.T.(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 (Revenue) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeal) has erred in 1. Not following the provisions of section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal. 3.admitting additional evidences without following the provisions of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and relying on the facts of the case not presented by the assessee before the AO 4. deleing the addition of Rs. 50500/- made by the AO on account of non- ge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any view of the matter, the Id Assessing Officer and Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhopal , have erred in making and up holding the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of non genuine unsecured loans. That, the respondent craves leave to add and/or amend any ground(s) of the cross objection before and/or at the time of hearing. Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 in case of Mukesh Sharma 7. Though ground No. 1 & 2 of Revenue has challenged the validity of the order of Ld. CIT(A) contending that the ld. CIT(A) has not followed the provisions of section 250(1) of the Act by not giving the notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing of the appeal. 8. At the outset, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) placed on record letter dated 13.03.2019 requesting for not pressing ground No.1 & 2 raised in this appeal. Learned Authorised Representative (in short AR) did not oppose. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. From going through the letter issued by the Office of Commissioner of Income Tax (DR) bearing No.FCIT( DR)I.T.A.T./Ind/2018-19 dated 13.05.2019 we observe that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. This ground of appeal by the revenue is directed against the treatment of part of the agricultural income as nongenuine and income from undisclosed sources. Ld. AO while examining the assessee's claim of earning agricultural income of Rs. 12,13,089/- asked the assessee to substantiated the claim by furnishing documentary evidences regarding holding of agricultural land, details of agricultural lands put to cultivation, crops grown, quantities produced, sale consideration, expenses incurred etc. and also to file the profit and loss account. We find that ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue given following finding of facts by directing the assessing officer to estimate agricultural income of Rs. 25,000/- per acre for A.Y. 2003-04 and Rs. 30,000/- for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2009-10 respectively. 6) Ground No.3 This ground of appeal is directed against treating of part of the agricultural income as non-genuine and income from undisclosed sources. The AO has observed that the appellant was required to substantiate the claim of earning agricultural income shown at the declared amount by furnishing doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the appellant, which has not been properly discharged. Therefore, the AO has rejected the tall claims. However, after considering the orders of Hon'ble ITAT, Jabalpur Bench in the case of Shri Suresh Chand Khausal vs ITO Itarasi and Shri Dulichand Goel vs DCIT, Indore and CIT vs Paras Kumar Samirmal Jain, Indore, where the agricultural income was held acceptable respectively at Rs. 15,000/- per acre in A. Yr. 1998-99 and at Rs.I0,0001- in the block period 01.04.1996 to 17.02.2002, the AO has estimated the agricultural income at Rs. 20,000/-per acre in A.Yrs. 2003-(}4 to 2004-05 and at Rs. 25,000/- per acre in A.Yrs. 2005-06 to 09-10.pplying these standards, the following amounts were held as non-genuine agricultural income and treated the same as income from other sources. Ayr. Agril. Income treated as income from other sources Rs. 2003-04 75,000/- 2004-05 78,000/- 2006-07 8,048/- 2007-08 1,24,412/- 2008-09 3,90,000/- 2009-10 960589/- 6.1) In the course of appeal proceedings, the ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant owned agricultural lands with all agricultural facilities. All the necessary details ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... satisfactorily explained the reasonableness of the quantum of agricultural income claimed to have been earned by him. There are huge variations in the figures shown in different years, for which no explanation was forthcoming. At the same time, the estimation made by the AO cannot be held to be reasonable. The AO did not conduct any independent enquiry from revenue authorities or cite comparable cases of the close localities to support his findings. The orders of the Han'ble ITAT Benches relate to different periods and the income held reasonable in the subsequent period is lesser than the preceding period. Thus, it is clear that the facts of those cases are different. However, in the absence of sufficient material to support the claim, the income prescribed in the Tribunal orders can be taken as indicative and after considering the consistent figure of agricultural income shown by the appellant, the AO is directed to estimate the agricultural income at Rs. 25,000 per acre for A. Y Rs. 2003 -04 and 2004-05 and at Rs. 30,0001- per acre in AYrs. 2006-07 to 2009-10. This ground of appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. date of bill being 28.01.2007, it relates to F.Yr.2006-07 relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cription to the equity share capital and share premium was received at Rs. 1,50,00,000/- by PPTPL during the A.Y. 2009-10. Documents also reveal that some Kolkata based company invested in the share capital of PPTPL for equity shares having face value of Rs. 10 and share premium of Rs. 90 per share. During the course of search when the assessee was confronted with these documents, he admitted that the sum of Rs. 1.50 crore was his undisclosed income and was introduced in the company PPTPL through various companies based in Kolkata. Later on in the income tax return filed in reply to notice u/s 153A of the Act the assessee failed to offer the alleged sum of Rs. 1.50 corers for tax. Ld. AO conducted necessary inquiry to come to a conclusion that the invested companies based in Kolkata are merely accommodation entries providers and the alleged amount was undisclosed income of the assessee. When the matter come up before the Ld. CIT(A) the addition was deleted. 21. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 22. At the outset, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged share capital & share premium of Rs. 1.50 crores was received in the hands of the comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained investment in shares of Rs. 1.50 croes is very same issue which was before the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. PPTPL (supra), therefore, in these given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the instant issue raised in ground no.5 for unexplained investment of Rs. 1.50 crore also needs to be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result ground No.5 of the revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 27. Now we take up ground No.6 through which the Revenue has challenged the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 5,80,555/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unexplained investment in gold. 28. Brief facts relating to this issue are during the course of search gold jewellery having net weight of 1199.830 gms was found from the appellant residence and the lockers available in the name of the assessee, his mother and wife. Certain bills for the purchase of 900 gms gold jewellery was found during the search along with certain evidences showing that gold jewellery weighing 1602.330 gms were sold during the A.Ys. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had worked out and made the addition at Rs. 6,67,0901- applying the average rate taken in the valuation report prepared at the time of search. 13.1 In the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant has contended that the addition made by the AO is not justified. The appellant belongs to a well to do family and the entire jewellery was either inherited from the parents or received by the family members including their children on various occasions or purchased subsequently. In the course of intensive search, the details of jewellery sold and purchased were found and all these facts were accepted by the AO without any dispute. However, the AO has considered the jewellery received on marriages and other occasions by Smt. Vimla Rani Sharma, Smt. Neena Sharma and the appellant and received on inheritance only at 1500 gms. The jewellery received and owned by the unmarried children of the appellant i.e. son, Shri Indra Prakash and daughter Miss Ronak Sharma was not considered him. The balance quantity of 402.160 gms relate to the children. It was contended that even as per the CBDT's instructions regarding seizure of jewellery, jewellery in respect of unmarried daughter at 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee i.e. Shri Mukesh Sharma at Bhopal on 21.7.2008. Various documents along with the memorandum of agreement to purchase 1.9 hactare of land (approximate 4.70 acre land) at Ratanpur, Misord near Bhopal dated 24.5.2008 were found. During the post search enquiry it was found that the said land was purchased on 23.6.2008 by the assessee along with 14 other copurchasers which belong to a place called Dabra. 21 registration deeds were made showing total sale consideration at Rs. 5 crores and Rs. 49,18,335/- (roughly Rs. 50 lakhs) as registry charges, stamp and other fees were incurred as detailed below; S.No Name of the Purchasers Amount of Registry (Rs.) Stamp Duty (Rs.) Stamp Paper fee (Rs.) Other fees (Rs.) Khasra No./total aria Area sold 1 RC Parashar 2700000 239625 600 21775 556/(1.1 80 hec.) 0.100 Hec. 2 -do- 2595000 230310 280 20935 556/(1.180 hec 0.080 Hec. 3 Lalta Prasad Choudhary 2647000 235000 3000 21355 556/(1.1 80 Hec.) 0.100 hec. 4 Kamlesh Choudhary 479000 42520 2500 4010 559/(0.160 Hec.) 0.020 hec. 5 -do- 2168000 192500 3000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts LPS-1/1 page No.74 (front and back) which contained certain calculations for the alleged land deal with Mr. Vinod Vaish. Ld. A.O observed that certain details of receipt and payments and some calculation were there on these loose papers. On back side certain calculations have been made. The alleged seized documents forms part of impugned assessment order at page 51to 55. When the assessee was confronted with these seized documents it was submitted that these are merely rough jottings and the calculations relates to the future planning of selling the agriculture land after converting it for residential purpose. However Ld. A.O was not convinced with the submissions. On observing the fact that the actual transaction relating to purchase of land was having some nexus with the seized document which included the reference to cheque payment of Rs. 50 lakhs, area of land, the figure 225 mentioned in the seized document denoting the cheque of Rs. 225 lakhs deposited in the bank account of co-purchasers. Ld. A.O also linked the amount of Rs. 323 lakhs mentioned on the seized documents with the cash deposited in the bank account of the co-purchasers. On the basis of these facts Ld. A.O c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/- assessee succeeded before Ld. CIT(A) as this addition was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) giving detailed finding of fact and coming to a conclusion that the impugned addition was based on the basis of seized document and jottings contained in these loose papers may have generated a suspicion but they were not sufficient enough to conclude that the alleged "on money" has changed hands as there is no corroborative evidence to prove it. 37. Now revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising Ground No.7. 38. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. AO. She also referred to the finding of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of co-purchasers where detailed finding is given that other co-purchasers are not man of means to the extent of income they have shown for Assessment Year 2009-10 It was only for Assessment Year 2009-10 that they had disclosed higher income but in the subsequent assessment year normal income have been shown. These co-purchasers have also offered the unsecured loan taken during the year to tax. Cash was deposited in their respective bank accounts which is alleged to have been received from Mr. Mukesh Sharma. She further submitted that var....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances the addition made by the Ld. A.O was not justified and Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. 40. In support of the contention that no addition is possible on account of imaginary and non reliable entries found in diary and loose papers. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court/Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals; Sr. No. Party Names & Citation Proposition Para Page No 1 (1998) SCC 410 CBI v. V.C. Shukla Entries appearing in loose paper not seized from one person cannot from evidence for another person Para 34 & 39 1-18 2 (1988) 172-ITR 250/251 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) Chuharmal vs. CIT Rule of evidence & Salutary principal of common law jurisprudence Para 6 & 7 19-22 3 (2001) 70 TTJ (Ahd) 122 Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT The presumption under the provision of section 132(4A) would in any case not applicable to a third party from whose possession such papers and documents have not been obtained Para 12 23-29 4 (1991) 39 ITD 183(Del) Ashwin Kumar vs. ITO The loose sheet forming part of seized material is a dumb document and no additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) were based on presumption and not warranted by the facts of the case Para 5 & 6 125-126 17 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT vs. Atam Valves P. Ltd. As such the Ld. CIT(A) to that extent is justifies in holding that estimation of sales on the basis of lose slips represented payment of wages is not possible Para 2 128 18 (2003) 84 ITD 320 (Mum) Straptex (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT The presumption under the provision of section 132 (4A) would in any case not applicable to a third party from whose possession such papers and documents have not been obtained Para 7 129-135 19 (2006) 99 ITD 177 (Del) Dumb Documents or documents with no certainty have no evidentiary value Para 36 136-153 20 (2017) 394 ITR 220 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) Common cause ( A registered Society) v. UOI Investigation could not have been directed in cas of high public functionaries on the basis of legally inadmissible evidence in form of loose papers 154-162 21 (2018) 32 ITJ 510 (Trib- Indore) Assessment. CIT v. Narottam Mishra AO made additions without any basis and only on the basis of suspicion and doubts and the reference drawn by AO were als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents/decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court/High Courts and Tribunals. In Ground No.7 raised by the revenue in the case of Shri Mukesh Sharma for Assessment Year 2009-10 the finding of Ld. CIT(A) has been challenged for the deletion of addition for unaccounted investment of Rs. 87,46,000/- alleged to have been made on account of 'ON MONEY' paid for purchase of land. On 21.7.2008 search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the residence of assessee at Bhopal. Various documents were seized which also included memorandum of agreement to purchase 1.9 hectare of land (approximately 4.70 acre land) at Ratanpur, Misrod, near Bhopal dated 24.5.2008. Statements of the assessee were taken. During post search enquiry it was found that through the above referred agreement 21 sale deeds were registered in the name of assessee and 14 other co-purchasers to purchase the land from Mr. Vinod Vaish. The total consideration paid for the purchase of land was Rs. 5 crores along with payment on stamp duty charges at Rs. 46,64,880/- and other charges. At the cost of repetition we are again reproducing the details of 21 sale deeds; S.No Name of the Purchasers Amount of Registry (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... These seized loose papers contained certain entries and calculations. These are not signed by any of the parties. For better understanding we reproduce below the scan copy of the typed version of seized document on the basis of which the Ld. A.O came to a conclusion that "ON MONEY' of Rs. 8,74,60,600/- was paid by all the purchasers including the assessee to Mr. Vinod Vaish and to the extent of assessee's share in the land i.e. 10% addition for unaccounted investment of Rs. 87,46,000/- was made by the Ld. A.O. In the assessment order Ld. A.O has reproduced the original seized document as well as typed version of the seized documents which are placed at page 53 and 55 of the paper book. 43. In the seized document LPS 1/1 page No.74 there were also details of bifurcation of the total land along with the amount paid for which portion and the total consideration for 1.9 hectare land is stated at Rs. 5 crores only. 44. Now coming to the English typed version of the seized documents scanned above these contains various figures and certain calculation for 206910 s1q.ft land @660/- per sq.ft. These are loose papers having no specific mention of names of the related parties. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tamp duty, etc. This land was purchased from Shri Vinod Vaish and his family members through 21 registries. In the course of search, the appellant has admitted that the entire amount of Rs. 5 crores pertains to him and he was ready to surrender the amount as his undisclosed income. The AO further held that seized documents showed that total payment of Rs. 14,24,60,600/- was made in the land deal out of which Rs. 5,50,00,000/- ( including registry charges) was paid and the balance amount was paid in cash over and above the stated purchase consideration. The AO has held that page no.74 ofLPS-1I1 and back side of the said page, give detailed calculations of the land deal with Shri Vinod Vaish. As per calculation given in page no.75, the area in sq.ft comes to 206910 sqfts and the total cost @Rs. 660/- per sq.ft works out to Rs. 13,65,60,600/- and after including Rs. 50,00,000/- towards registry expenses and Rs. 9,00,000/- paid to one Shri Kaushal Bhaiya, the total amount works out to Rs. 14,24,60,600/-. The payment details are given on the reverse side on page no. 74. He further held that page no. 26 of loose paper of LPS-l/l give names of 14 persons in whose names the land was purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness. The figures were written only to make believe the prospective customers about the transaction, whereas no such transactions had ever happened. The appellant further contended that Ratanpur, Misrode is slightly away from Bhopal and the relevant land had no rate of Rs. 660/- per sq.ft at the relevant point of time. Filing a copy of the written submission made during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has contended that land under consideration was agricultural and un-diverted land and it was not commanding any such price as assumed by the AO. The estimated rough jottings at page no.75 relate to the calculation of estimated return after diversion of land for residential and commercial purposes after obtaining necessary approvals from various authorities. Therefore, the action of the AO, treating the documents as correct evidences is not justified and hence, the addition is also not correct. The appellant has also referred to the statement of Shri Vinod Vaish to press his point that no such payment was made. It was contended that Shri Vinod Vaish has denied receipt of any such payments. It was also contended that as per the appellant's information all othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt's contention that the entire exercise is based on inferences carries more force.No incriminating documents establishing transfer of funds between the buyers and the sellers were found. The land was purchased at a price higher than the Guide Line Price fixed by the Collector. The land was un-diverted agricultural land and considering the location and the status of the land, it did not command such price as opined by the A.O. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that though the jottings contained in the loose papers may generate a suspicion, they are not sufficient enough, without corroborating evidences, to conclude that actual money has changed hands. In this view of the matter, the addition covered in this ground of appeal is not sustainable, hence, deleted. This ground of appeal is, accordingly, allowed". 47. After perusal of the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and also examining the facts of the case. We observe that except the loose papers, other evidences placed on record clearly proves that the transaction of purchase of land took place and the assessee and other copurchasers purchased 1.9 hectare land from Mr. Vinod Vaish and total consideration paid by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of CIT V/s Anil Bhalla (2010) 322 ITR 191 (Del) also held that "when no independent material or evidence has been brought on record by the A.O to establish that the notices of jottings of loose sheets or on the paper written on accounted transactions cannot be made". 50. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CITV/s Maulikumar K Shah 2008 307 ITR 137 wherein it has held that "the additions made by the A.O on the basis of seized paper alone without any corroborative evidence could not be sustained". 51. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M.M. Financiers V/s DCIT 2007 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai). 52. There are also certain legal precedent which clarifies that the loose documents cannot alone make basis where loose sheets are found, there was inference drawn by the AO that they represent concealed transactions but such inference can be positively made only on identification of papers and after due verifications. Figures therein cannot be rightly inferred to represent un accounted income unless there is something more to it. 53. In the case of CIT V/s Girish Choudhary 2008 296 ITR 691 (Delhi) the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment dated 08.12.1998, in question No.3, Shri Rajarathinam admitted that he had received Rs. 4.10 lakhs as sale consideration but in question No.4, he admitted that he had received Rs. 34.35 lakhs. Again in the statement recorded on 11.12.1998, Shri Rajarathinam, the seller admitted that a total consideration of Rs. 34.85 lakhs was received from the assessee out of which Rs. 4.10 lakhs was received in demand draft and the balance in cash. In the affidavit given on 08.01 .1999 by Shri Rajarathinam, it was mentioned that the sale consideration received by him from Sri P.V.Kalyanasundaram i.e. the assessee, was only Rs. 4.10 lakhs and the earlier statements given before the Income Tax authorities were not true. On 10.08.2000, the seller Sri Rajarathinam submitted a letter before the Assessing Officer withdrawing the affidavit given on 08.01.1999. In the subsequent sworn statement recorded before the Assessing Officer on 20.11.2000, Sri Rajarathinam had mentioned that the sale consideration of Rs. 34.85 lakhs which was received by him from the purchase consideration was actually Rs. 34.85 lakhs, as against Rs. 4.10 lakhs stated in the registered deed for purchase of land. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 4.10 lakhs, the seller filed his I.T. Return on 28.01.2000 wherein he did not admit the cash on money consideration for the sale transaction. Subsequently he revised the I.T. Return wherein he admitted the sale consideration and showing Rs. 4.80 lakhs out of the above as utilised for construction of residential house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs. 1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I.T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save from further harassment from the Revenue and escape from the exigibility of tax on undisclosed income of the cash consideration under Section 158 BD of the Act, which in magnitude would far exceed the tax paid by him. The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction was that of Revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and held as follows: "We find that it is the uniform view of the Courts and also held by the Apex Court as reported in 131 ITR 397 the burden of proving actual con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prosecution from the statements made by Shri Jacob Mathai, Danial P. Rambal and P. Ghoshal and Ejaj Ilmi during investigation, in that, they have admitted receipts of the payments as shown against them in MR.71/91. While on this point, he made a particular reference to those entries in MR 71/91 Which, according to him m if corresponded with the entries in the other books and the enclose sheets would prove the payments to Shri Advani and Shri Shukla. As regard s the proof of authorship of the entries he drew our attention to the statements of Pawan Jain, A. V. Pathak and O.K. Guha who have stated that the entries were made by J. K. Jain and that the Jain Brothers had put their signatures against some of these entries in token of verification thereof. He also drew our attention to the written opinion given by the hand writing expert in this regard. 39. In Beni v. Bisan Oayal [AIR 1925 Nag. 445J it was observed that entries in book s of aCCount are not by themselves sUfficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his Own books behind the back of the parties. There must b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion has also observed that Department has not been able to make out a clear case of taxing such income in the hands of the applicant firm on the basis of these documents. 24. Since it is not disputed that for entries relied on in these loose papers and electronic data were not regularly kept during course of business, such entries were discussed in the order dated 11.11.2016 passed in Sahara's case by the Settlement Commission and the documents have not been relied upon by the Commission against assessee, and thus such documents have no evidentiary value against third parties. On the basis of the materials which have been placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out to direct investigation against any of the persons named in the Birla's documents or in the documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara. 27. Considering the aforesaid principles which have been laid down, we are of the opinion that the materials in question are not good enough to constitute offences to direct the registration of F.I.R. and investigation therein. The materials should qualify the test as per the aforesaid decision. The complaint should no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the addition of Rs. 87,46,600/- and dismiss the revenue's Ground No.7. 59. Though Ground No.8 revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 65,00,000/- which was made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of non-genuine unsecured loans. 60. At the outset, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee giving reference to his submissions for ground no.3 submitted that certain additional evidences were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) relating to the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- for unexplained cash credit. Ld. CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 65,00,000/- without calling for remand report from the assessing officer. Prayer was made to set aside to the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. Ld. DR raised no objection if the issue raised in ground no.8 are set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after calling for remand report from the assessing officer relating to the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). 61. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The revenue has raised the issue relating to deletion of addition of Rs. 65,00,000/- made by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- made on account of non genuine agriculture income. Since we have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) this Ground No.1 of the assessee's Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 67. Ground No.2 of the Cross Objection relates to unexplained investment of Rs. 1.50 crores. We find that the same issue has been raised by the revenue in Ground No.5 of its appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10and after adjudicating the same we allowed revenue's ground for statistical purposes to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Therefore this ground No.2 of the Cross Objection also deserves to be allowed for statistical purposes. 68. Ground No.3 of Cross Objection relates to addition of un disclosed investment in jewellery. We have dealt with this issue in the revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and have confirmed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 58,555/-. Therefore Ground No.3 of Cross Objection deserves to be dismissed. 69. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 87,46,600/- on account of unexplained investment towards payment of on money for purchase of land is merely supportive to the finding of Ld. CIT(A). Since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide his order dated 29.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act. Against this impugned addition of Rs. 8,74,60,600/- assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded as the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 75. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 76. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The issue raised by the revenue in Ground No.3 deleting the addition of Rs. 8,74,60,600/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of undisclosed income. We find that the issue relates to the sale of 1.9 hectare land owned by the assessee for which consideration of Rs. 5 crores was stated in the registered sale deed but the Ld. A.O in the case of one of the purchaser Mr. Mukesh Sharma, on the basis of loose paper seized during the course of search u/s 132 of the Act conducted on 21.07.2008 held that an 'ON MONEY' of Rs. 8,74,60,600/- is alleged to have been paid by various purchases to Mr. Vinod Vaish. We find that we have already adjudicated this issue in the case of Mr. Mukesh Sharma for Assessment Year 2009- 10 wherein we have held that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition for alleged 'ON MONEY' payment. We have also held that the Ld. A.O err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to tax in the return filed. There is no basis for making the addition except the A.O's findings contained in the assessment order. The rough jottings relate to the calculation of estimated return on sale of such land, provided the land is diverted for residential and commercial purposes after obtaining approvals from various authorities. The land can be sold in terms of square feet only, when usage of land is changed and converted into residential/ commercial use. The hand writing contained in the loose paper is not in the handwriting of the appellant or any of his family members. There is no corrob01.-ative material to suggest that the appellant has actually received any amount more than of Rs. 3,10,50,OOO/- towards sale consideration of agricultural land. There is no conclusive presumption to hold that actual consideration that was passed between Shri Mukesh Sharma and the appellant of Rs. 13,65,60,OOO/- and no addition is possible on the basis of suspicion, conjectures, surmises and on the basis of documents. The appellant has finally relied on the following cases. CIT vs J.P. Dubey (1997) 223 ITR 451(MP) 39 lTD 183 - Aswani Kumar vs ITO in the ITAT Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the amount of cash deposited in the bank accounts of the 14 persons plus registration charges and page no. 74 back side and page no. 75 corroborated each other. Though the first observation is found to be correct, the subsequent observations are only inferences and are not based on facts. There is nothing unusual in tallying the land area. The amount of registration expenses were incurred at Rs. 49, 18,335/- and not Rs. 50,00,000/-, i.e. the figure mentioned against the narration. The total of the amount deposited through DDI cheques in the bank accounts of the 14 persons comes to Rs. 2, 70,05,400/- and it is not matching with the figure of '225 '. Similarly, the total amount of cash deposited in the bank accounts of the 14 persons comes to Rs. 2, 76,77,877/-. Thus, it is also not tallying with the figure of '323 '. Since, the above figures are not tallying with the above figures, it cannot be concluded that page no. 74 backside and 75 are corroborative to each other. Except these jottings, there are no other corroborative evidences to justify the addition. On the contrary, the appellant's contention that the entire exercise is based on inferences carries mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....72,34,768 4 Sukhdev Singh Dhariwal ITANo.702/Ind/2016 22,21,765 17,78,235 50,13,003 90,13,003 5 Khemraj Singh Chauhan ITANo.703/Ind/2016 50,21,671 NIL 94,47,865 1,44,69,536 6 Kamlesh Kumar Choudhary ITANo.704/Ind/2016 25,91,668 NIL 1,18,77,868 1,44,69,536 7 Santosh Kumar Sharma ITANO.705/Ind/2016 26,33,954 NIL 46,00,814 72,34,768 8 Lalta Prasad Choudhary ITA No.706/Ind/2016 22,94,656 3,55,913 49,40,112 75,90,681 9 Pradeep Kumar Sharma ITANo.707/Ind/2016 57,33,205 1,21,795 15,01,563 73,56,563 10 Ramesh Chandra Parashar ITANo.708/Ind/2016 28,54,750 4,33,000 1,16,14,786 1,49,02,536 11 Vijay Kumar Shrivastava ITANo.709/Ind/2016 46,61,357 3,38,643 25,73,411 75,73,411 12 Dharmendra K. Choudhary ITANo.710/Ind/2016 21,95,008 4,55,561 50,39,760 76,90,329 13 Ram Kumar Swami ITANo.711/Ind/2016 22,88,974 3,61,595 49,45,794 75,96,363 14 Virendra Kumar Sharma ITANo.542/Ind/2017 23,58,560 2,92,010 48,76,208 76,26,778 82. Following grounds of appeal have been raised by the above stated 14 assessee's;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the opening capitol which are I10t within the scope of the assessment year under consideration and which were not even the Subject matter of assessment. ITA No.700/Ind/2016 1.That the Ld. CIT{A} erred both in law and on facts in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 148. The Id. CIT(A} has failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings' initiated by the AO were illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of incorrect facts since the income alleged to have escaped assessment was already offered to tax in the return of income. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in deciding the entire appeal on a preconceived hypothesis and predetermined notion without considering the written submissions and facts on record. Most of the findings in the appellate order are without any basis and appear to be on presumptions and surmises. 4. That the Ld. CIT{A} has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that since no addition has been made in respect of the income on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....surmises. 4. That the Ld. CIT{A} has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that since no addition has been made in respect of the income on the basis of which assessment was reopened therefore the addition made for item in respect of which reason of reopening was not recorded is unsustainable. 5. That the Ld. CIT{A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 67,72,708/- made on the basis of a dumb document unrelated to the assessee and not found from the assessee's possession. 6. That the manner in which the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition in para 14 over the alleged excess investment in land without even discussing the alleged document, submissions of the assessee and simply relying on the Assessment order is unwarranted and perverse and is devoid of any merit. 7. That the Ld. CIT{A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the protective addition as substantive addition in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) on one hand is doubting the financial capacity of the appellant to make the investment and on the other hond is confirming the protective addition os substantive addition. The said finding is perverse and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one hand is doubting the financial capacity of the appellant to make the investment and on the other hand is confirming the protective addition os substantive addition. The said finding is perverse and contrary to the entire matrix built up by the CIT(A) 9. That the Ld. CIT(AJ has exceeded her jurisdiction in giving directions to the AO to reopen the case for AY 2010-11 and giving directions for examining the opening capitol which are I10t within the scope of the assessment year under consideration and which were not even the Subject matter of assessment. ITA No.703/Ind/2016 1. That the Ld. CIT{A} erred both in law and on facts in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 148. The Id. CIT(A} has failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings' initiated by the AO were illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of incorrect facts since the income alleged to have escaped assessment was already offered to tax in the return of income. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in deciding the entire appeal on a preconceived hypothesis and predetermined notion without considering the written submissions and facts on record. Most of the findings in the appellate order are without any basis and appear to be on presumptions and surmises. 4. That the Ld. CIT{A} has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that since no addition has been made in respect of the income on the basis of which assessment was reopened therefore the addition made for item in respect of which reason of reopening was not recorded is unsustainable. 5. That the Ld. CIT{A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,18,77,858/-. made on the basis of a dumb document unrelated to the assessee and not found from the assessee's possession. 6. That the manner in which the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition in para 14 over the alleged excess investment in land without even discussing the alleged document, submissions of the assessee and simply relying on the Assessment order is unwarranted and perverse and is devoid of any merit. 7. That the Ld. CIT{A) erred in law and on facts in confirmi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT{A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the protective addition as substantive addition in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) on one hand is doubting the financial capacity of the appellant to make the investment and on the other hond is confirming the protective addition of substantive addition. The said finding is perverse and contrary to the entire matrix built up by the CIT(A) 8. That the Ld. CIT(AJ has exceeded her jurisdiction in giving directions to the AO to reopen the case for AY 2010-11 and giving directions for examining the opening capitol which are I10t within the scope of the assessment year under consideration and which were not even the Subject matter of assessment. ITA No.706/Ind/2016 1.That the Ld. CIT{A} erred both in law and on facts in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 148. The Id. CIT(A} has failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings' initiated by the AO were illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of incorrect facts since the income alleged to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of incorrect facts since the income alleged to have escaped assessment was already offered to tax in the return of income. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in deciding the entire appeal on a preconceived hypothesis and predetermined notion without considering the written submissions and facts on record. Most of the findings in the appellate order are without any basis and appear to be on presumptions and surmises. 4. That the Ld. CIT{A} has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that since no addition has been made in respect of the income on the basis of which assessment was reopened therefore the addition made for item in respect of which reason of reopening was not recorded is unsustainable. 5. That the Ld. CIT{A) and the AO were not justified in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,21,795/-. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,01,563/- made on the basis of a dumb document unrelated to the assessee and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,33,000/-. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,16,14,786/- made on the basis of a dumb document unrelated to the assessee and not found from the assessee's possession. 7. That the manner in which the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition in para 14 over the alleged excess investment in land without even discussing the alleged document, submissions of the assessee and simply relying on the Assessment order is unwarranted and perverse and is devoid of any merit. 8. That the Ld. CIT{A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the protective addition as substantive addition in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) on one hand is doubting the financial capacity of the appellant to make the investment and on the other hond is confirming the protective addition os substantive addition. The said finding is perverse and contrary to the entire matrix built up by the CIT(A) 9. That the Ld. CIT(AJ has exceeded her jurisdiction in giving directions to the AO to reopen the case for AY 2010-11 and giving directions for examining the opening capitol which are I10t within the scope of the assessment year under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion in giving directions to the AO to reopen the case for AY 2010-11 and giving directions for examining the opening capitol which are I10t within the scope of the assessment year under consideration and which were not even the Subject matter of assessment. ITA No.710/Ind/2016 1.That the Ld. CIT{A} erred both in law and on facts in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 148. The Id. CIT(A} has failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings' initiated by the AO were illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of incorrect facts since the income alleged to have escaped assessment was already offered to tax in the return of income. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in deciding the entire appeal on a preconceived hypothesis and predetermined notion without considering the written submissions and facts on record. Most of the findings in the appellate order are without any basis and appear to be on presumptions and surmises. 4. That the Ld. CIT{A} has erred in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d facts on record. Most of the findings in the appellate order are without any basis and appear to be on presumptions and surmises. 4. That the Ld. CIT{A} has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that since no addition has been made in respect of the income on the basis of which assessment was reopened therefore the addition made for item in respect of which reason of reopening was not recorded is unsustainable. 5. That the Ld. CIT{A) and the AO were not justified in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,61,595/- claimed as expenses. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,45,794/- made on the basis of a dumb document unrelated to the assessee and not found from the assessee's possession. 7. That the manner in which the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition in para 14 over the alleged excess investment in land without even discussing the alleged document, submissions of the assessee and simply relying on the Assessment order is unwarranted and perverse and is devoid of any merit. 8. That the Ld. CIT{A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the protectiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... That the Ld. CIT{A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the protective addition as substantive addition in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) on one hand is doubting the financial capacity of the appellant to make the investment and on the other hond is confirming the protective addition os substantive addition. The said finding is perverse and contrary to the entire matrix built up by the CIT(A) 8. That the Ld. CIT(AJ has exceeded her jurisdiction in giving directions to the AO to reopen the case for AY 2010-11 and giving directions for examining the opening capitol which are I10t within the scope of the assessment year under consideration and which were not even the Subject matter of assessment. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,92,010/- shown as agricultural income savings of the assessee without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 83. From perusal of the above grounds following four common issues needs to be adjudicated:- (i) Challenging the validity of reassessment u/s 147 of the Act (ii) Protective addition made on the basis of dumb document unrelated to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parties. Certain loose papers were also seized which as per the Ld. A.O indicated some undisclosed investment. Return were filed on 31.03.2010 and notice u/s 148 of the Act issue within 4 years i.e. before 31.03.2014. Proper opportunity was given to assessee(s) to reply to the reasons recorded for reopening. In our considered view the cases of 14 assessee's were fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and for conducting reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. We accordingly dismiss this common issue raised in 14 cases challenging the validity reassessment proceedings. 87. Now we take up second common issue relating to the addition on protective basis in the hands of the assessee's for the unaccounted investment in purchase of 1.9 hectare land jointly with Mr. Mukesh Sharma purchased from Mr. Vinod Vaish. We find that this issue stands adjudicated by us in the case of Mr. Mukesh Sharma and Mr. Vinod Vaish vide ITA (SS)No.88/Ind/2014 for Assessment Year 2009-10 and ITA No.189/Ind/2013 for assessment Year 2009-10 wherein we have held that no addition was called for the 'ON MONEY' payment of Rs. 8,74,60,600/- as it was based on the seized loose papers which are merely d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p;28,54,750 4,33,000 7 Vijay Kumar Shrivastava ITANo.709/Ind/2016 50,00,000 46,61,357 3,38,643 8 Dharmendra K. Choudhary ITANo.710/Ind/2016 26,50,569 21,95,008 4,55,561 9 Ram Kumar Swami ITANo.711/Ind/2016 26,50,569 22,88,974 3,61,595 10 Virendra Kumar Sharma ITANo.542/Ind/2017 26,51,070 23,58,560 292010 90. We find that the alleged difference was claimed by the assessee as expenses incurred to have been incurred for earning undisclosed income. Ld. A.O made the addition for want of details. Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue. We however on the perusal of the chart find that except in the case of Sukhdev Singh Dhariwal ITA No.702/Ind/2016 in all the other cases the incidental expenses claimed are in the range of10% of the amount admitted as undisclosed income. In the case of Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhariwal expense of Rs. 17,78,235/- has been claimed against the undisclosed income of Rs. 22,21,765/-. It is an accepted fact that the incidental expenses are ought to be incurred to earn any income. In the instant cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such enhancement or reduction. Explanation.- In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) may consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings in which the order appealed against was passed, notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant. 93. From going through the above provision we understand that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the powers to decide the appeal against the assessee of a particular assessment which he/she may confirm/reduce or enhance or annulled. The order of the assessment relates to particular assessment year or assessment years. Ld. CIT(A) is bound to adjudicate the issues emanating out of the appeal for the respective assessment year. Giving directions to the A.O to consider for re-assessment for other assessment years for which no appeal is pending before CIT, in our view seems to be out of his/her jurisdiction. In the instant case it seems that Ld. CIT(A) has exceeded her jurisdiction of giving direction for reopening of cases for Assessment Year 2010-11 because the appeals of the assessee(s) were pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 only. We therefore allow this common iss....