TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary to law and the facts of the appellant's case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 45,58,000/- as deemed income of the assessee under section 69B of the Income Tax, Act, 1961 and also income of Rs. 13,55,000/- assessed u/s 154 by the assessing officer u/s 69B. 3. Fir these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays for relief. 3. During the search the documents marked "Page 20 of Annexure D-8" was found wherein the handwriting of the assessee has shown noting pertain to two plots namely, plot no.9 for an amount of Rs. 33,56,050/- + 5,34,907/- = Rs. 38,91,557/- plot no. 55 for an amount of Rs. 26,80,250/- + Rs. 8,20,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was seized. The said document is written in the handwriting of the assesses and reflects estimated market price of the plots purchased by the assessee. During that period there was a spurt in the market immediately after the purchase of the said plots. The assessee is not an expert accountant. He was trying to find out the market price of the plot plus construction expenses for the purposes of disposing off the constructed plots. The said plots were purchased by the assessee in Feb., 2006 Plot No 55 for a price of Rs. 6,18,000/- and Plot No 9 for a price of Rs. 7,20,000/-. The figures of Rs. 33,56,950/- end 26,80,250/- as mentioned in the dairy as cost of plot was arrived at by adding estimated market price of the plots Rs. 32,50,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ively. 3. The figures of Rs. 38,91,557/- for Plot No 9 and Rs. 35,01,056/- for Plot No 55 as mentioned in the seized documents are not the true cost of the plots but the estimated market price of the plots for the purposes of disposing off the same. 4. There is no other corroborative evidence with the department to arrive at a opinion that the said plots were purchased for Rs. 38,91,557/-and Rs. 35,01,056/-. 5. The plots were registered at the rate more than the collector rates applicable in that area and the Assessing Officer has not disputed the same. 8. The Ld. AR further taken us through the documents in question. The plot no. 9 is of 240 Sq.yds and plot no. 55 is of 55 Sq.yds. The figures mentioned above w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 534907/- and Rs. 820836/- represents the collector value of the plots. It was argued that the fact that the plots have been duly purchased as mentioned in the document namely plot no. 55 and plot no. 9. She relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which is as under: " In this case on hand, it is an undisputed fact that the diary found and seized in the course of search is admitted by the assessee to be in his own writing The only disputed point being that the contents were mere estimates of plots of land and consequently the addition u/s 69C was unwarranted as the sellers had furnished affidavits etc. I find that the Ld AO at page 4 & 5 of the impugned order wherein the scanned copies of the diary pages have been affixed, has clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noted in the diary. The Revenue while recording the statement under section 132(4) even at the time of search and at the time of assessment could not bring out anything on record to prove are corroborate the diary noting. It has been the consistent stand of the assessee that these are estimates in the statements recorded. There was no evidence of cash payment or generation of cash or physical cash pertaining to the assessee found at the time of search. The Revenue did not enquire on the side of sellers of the plots to prove anything contra as put forward by the assessee. Thus, what we have on record is a mere noting of the diary which in the absence of any other corroborative evidence cannot be utilized for making addition under section 69B....