TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....completion of the assessment. The CBI had seized Rs. 2 crores during their search action on 22.4.2010. Statement on oath was recorded by the DDlT (Inv.), Delhi, wherein certain questions asked relating to cash lying at the residential premises, the extract of the relevant portion of the statement are reproduced in assessment order. The assessee in answer to the questions stated that about Rs. 15 Lakhs is at his residence and Rs. 2 Crore is in his office which is located in the ground floor. Out of Rs. 15 lacs, a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs belongs to company namely M/s Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 5 Lakhs is his personal account. The assessee has received Rs. 2 Crores as advance with regard to his agricultural land at Faridabad which he intend to sell the land is small plots. He has further stated that One Mr. Sharma has given him Rs. 2 Crores as advance for the said property. He came with two people whose names he will provide later on. The assessee also stated that he has met Mr. Sharma four times in Oberai Hotel and assessee do not know his exact address who is well known in Faridabad. Mr. Sharma approached the assessee for purchase of the land. The assessee has been promised fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessee 2. Also to produce the original MOU and receipts. 3. Inform about Shri Sharma, whether he is connected with this land deal. His full name/address. 4. Audit report with balance sheet, P & L Account for the previous year. 3.2. On 30.01.2013, the Counsel for Rahul Ahuja filed written submission stating that payment of Rs. 21 Lakhs and Rs. 1.80 Crores in cash were made to assessee on 12.04.2010 and 21.04.2010 respectively. It was also stated that source of these payments were the withdrawals made from Axis Bank account during the month of January and February, 2010. The cash book of M/s Multi Trade Overseas, Proprietorship Firm of Sri Rahul Ahuja from 01.01.2010 to 30.4.2010 was filed. The original MOU and receipts were not produced for verification The full name of Mr. Sharma i.e. Mr Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and his address was filed and it was explained that he signed as witness on the MOU. The balance sheet and Audit report of Shri Rahul Ahuja for the F.Y. 2009-2010 were also furnished. It was also stated that cash in hand of Rs. 2,17,36,182/- was available on 31.03.2010 and the same was used for making the payments to assessee. It was also s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee, he has not met at any other place. He did not confirm the statement of assessee as regards size of the land and consideration for the same because according to him the size of the land was 30 Acres and agreed price was Rs. 4 crores only. He has also stated that he has not met assessee at Oberoi Hotel. 3.3. The A.O. further recorded statements of Shri Rahul Ahuja and explained about the land deal through Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma. He has also stated that area of the land was 30 Acres and agreed price was Rs. 4 crores and he has met the assessee at his residence at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. He has stated that Rs. 21 lakhs was paid in cash on 12.04.2010 and Rs. 1.80 crores was paid in cash on 21.04.2010. He has also submitted copy of the Agreement Dated 12.04.2010. He has stated that assessee has asked for payment in cash. As regards the source of the cash payment, he has stated that on 29.01.2010 he made cash withdrawal of Rs. 1.75 crores from his Bank Account maintained with Axis Bank, Greater Kailash-1, Delhi and another withdrawal of Rs. 20 lakhs was made on 02.02.2010 from the same account. He has also disputed the statement of assessee that land deal was for 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that this whole sequence of events have been created to mislead the Income- Tax department, and appears to be a story. 4. The assessee stated in Q.No.8 that Mr. Sharma gave him the amount of Rs. 2 Crores as advance and he came with two people whose names were not furnished. Whereas Shn Sanjeev Sharma had stated that on 21.4.2010 four persons (he himself, Anil Trehan. Rahu Ahuja and his friend) went to residence of Jatinder Pal Singh to deliver the cash, and on 12.4.2010 three persons (he himself, Anil Trehan, Rahul Ahuja) went to deliver the cash. It is surprising to note that the assessee could not even give the name of the buyer of the land Shn Rahul Ahuja. at the time of his statement recorded on 22.4.2010, which was only a day earlier on which advance of Rs. 1.80 crores was alleged to have been received. 5. The assessee stated in Q.No.9 that he met Mr. Sharma four times in Oberai Hotel Whereas Mr. Sanjeev Sharma has denied to have met the assessee at any hotel or restaurant etc., he even denied to have met him at Oberai Hotel. Therefore, this version of the assessee is also not correct. 6. The assessee stated that an amount of Rs. 2 Crores was receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3. On 19.4.2010 at 19.53 hrs., the telephonic conversation reveals that Dr. Ketan Desai inquired about the illegal gratification from Shri Jatinder Pal Singh in respect of Gian Sager Medical & Hospital, to which the assessee confirmed. 4. On 21.4.2010 at 13.20 hrs., the telephonic conversation between Dr. Sukhvinder Singh with Shri N.S. Bhangoo in which Shri N.S. Bhangoo suggests Dr. Sukhvinder Singh to meet Shri K.A. Paul, Manager. M/s PACL India Ltd., Connought Circus. New Delhi to complete the work of "DO WALA" 5. On 21.4.2010 at 13.33 hrs. the telephonic conversation, Shri K.A Paul, conformed and fixed the time for next day i.e. 22.4.2010. 6. On 21.4.2010 at 19.11 hrs Dr Ketan Desai inquires from Shri Jatinder Pal Singh whether he got or not, to which Shri Jatinder Pal Singh replied that it would reach by tomorrow and he (Dr Ketan Desai) would get it in the morning. 7. On 21.4.2010 at 13.34 hrs. Dr Sukhvinder Singh confirmed the transaction to take place on 22.4.2010. 8. On 22.4.2010 at 12.30 hrs. the telephonic conversation reveals that Dr Kamaljeet Singh, Chief Executive Officer Gain Sagar Medical College & Hospital Pati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recorded on oath. The assessee in his statement has stated that cash belong to the companies and also includes his personal cash. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has stated that whole cash belonged to him. He has furnished cash in hand chart showing cash withdrawal from bank of Rs. 1 lakh each in April, 2009, June, 2009, September, 2009, January, 2010. The A.O. noted that these withdrawals are very old prior to the date of search i.e., 22.04.2010 and same cannot be taken into account. The A.O. further noted that household withdrawals shown at Rs. 7,20,000/- are also debited from the cash in hand chart which appears to be very low looking to the life style, status of the assessee. The assessee owns Mercedes Car, Range Rower Car and possesses Vertu mobiles and owns several costly watches above Rs. 1 lakh and possesses Solitaire diamonds. Looking to his social status his monthly expenses cannot be estimated below Rs. 2 lakhs per month i.e.,Rs. 24 lakhs per annum. The A.O. accordingly made addition of Rs. 16,80,000/-. The assessee also stated to have earned Rs. 4 lakhs as agricultural income, for which, no evidence was filed. The A.O, therefore, noted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee. All the documentary evidences were filed for the deal. The assessee also highlighted the conversation between him and Shri Ketan Desai, Shri Sukhvinder Singh and Shri K.A. Paul to show that nothing transpired about the alleged collection of Rs. 2 crores etc., The Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee, call for the remand report from the A.O. and after giving opportunity to the assessee to rebut the claim of the assessee, confirmed the addition of Rs. 2 crores and upheld the Order of the A.O. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in paras 7 to 7.1.22 is reproduced as under: "7. I have gone through the contents of the assessment order, finding given by the Assessing Officer, written submissions of the appellant, details filed in the paper book and also the case laws relied upon by the appellant in support of his contentions and considered them judiciously on merits. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- mainly on the ground that the appellant conspired with Dr. Ketan Desai to receive an illegal gratification by extending favors to Gian Sagar Medical College & Hospital and that the receipt of such amount was explained to have been re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidences under rule 46A before CIT(A)-XXXII, New Delhi. The CIT(A)-XXXII, New Delhi has directed to conduct a detailed enquiry/investigation in respect unexplained cash found amounting to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for which assessee claims that it is a advance against the sale of property. 1. Report of the A.O. is as under : The additional evidences are duly considered and it is found that there is nothing new in the additional evidences. The paper submitted as additional evidences are already filed in the assessment proceedings and the same were duly considered. From the perusal of documents filed during the remand proceedings as well as assessment proceedings, following facts appear as under : (a) Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh is the owner of socalled land in Faridabad Haryana. Other than this fact, all things are after thought and try to camouflage the unexplained/ unaccounted money found during the search. His statements was recorded u/s 131 during the assessment. (b) Statements of buyer of the land Sh. Rahul Ahuja and broker/witness Sh. Sanjeev Sharma was recorded in detailed u/s 131 during the assessment (copy enclosed). (c) After caref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....huja and his friend) went to residence of Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh to deliver the cash, and on 12.4.2010 three persons (he himself, Sanjeev Kumar and Rahul Ahuja) went to deliver the cash. It is surprising to note that the assessee could not even give the name of the buyer of the land Sh. Rahul Ahuja, at the time of his statement recorded on 22.4.2010, which was only a day earlier on which advance of Rs. 1.80 crores was alleged to have been made. v. The assessee stated in Q. No. 9 that he met Mr. Sanjeev Sharma four times in Oberai Hotel. Whereas, Mr. Anil Trehan has stated that he met mostly at the residence of the assessee D-Block, Vasant Vihar, and only once he met the assessee along with his partner Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma. Whereas, the assessee in his statement never stated that he met Sh. Anil Kumar Trehan of Sh. Sanjeev Sharma was meeting him with someone. vi. Sh. Anil Trehan stated that every time he met the assessee along with his partner Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma. Whereas, the assessee in his statement never stated that he met Sh. Anil Kumar Trehan or Sh. Sanjeev Sharma was meeting him with someone. vii. The assessee stated that an amount of Rs. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon to produce by the [Assessing Officer]. (c) Where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause form producing before the [Assessing Officer] any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal. (d) Where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause form producing before giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal...........". The conditions [a) [d] mentioned above are not applicable in this case. Sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee by the Assessing Officer and hence provisions of Rule 46A are not applicable in this case. The condition [b) & [c] as mentioned above are also no applicable as the assessee did not submit any evidences to substantiate the he was prevented by sufficient cause. Therefore, it is a fit case for not admitting additional evidences under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules and you are kindly requested not to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee." 7.1. The said said report was provided to the AR of the appellant. Vide letter dated 14.10.2014 the AR of the appellant submitted his comments as a rebuttal which is extracted below : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t allegation of the AO that the photocopy of the MOU does not have the details of the Stamp Vendor is frivolous and callous. It is a well known fact that the details of the stamp vendor will be printed in the back side of the stamp paper and the back side of the stamp paper was unknowingly missed while making photocopies of the same. It must be noted that the AO never raised this issue when the MOU was originally fled during the assessment. In any case, we are now furnishing the copy of MoU which has the details of Stamp Vendors along with this Rebutals for your perusal. The third allegation of the AO, in this report, shows the lack of application of mind by the AO while making the Remand Report. The AO was completely oblivious to the fact that the search was conducted at the premises of the assessee and the MoU was available with the purchaser, i.e., Mr. Rahul Ahuja, who was issued summons under Section 131 of the Act by the AO. It is further brought to your notice that the AO has put the purchaser under oath and recorded his statement. In view of the above submissions, it is submitted before your goodself that the MoU is a genuine document and it is onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned land and the AO also has not disputed it. Also, the real estate market functions through a long chain and it is not always possible for the Seller to remember the name of the purchaser since he will be meeting many prospective clients in a day. In any case, not remembering the name of the purchaser cannot be the ground for making disallowance. We would like to highlight here that the purchaser proved his credit worthiness by appearing in person and showing a withdrawal of Rs. 1.75 Crores and Rs. 20 Lakhs from his Bank accounts. Hence, it is now for the AO to prove substantially with evidence that the Purchaser had NOT used the said amount for the purchase of impugned land. In the absence of any evidence to suggest that the assessee has obtained from any other source, it cannot be held as unaccounted cash. Discrepancy # 5 : The assessee has stated that he met Mr. Sanjeev Sharma four times in M/s. Oberai Hotel whereas the Mr. Anil Trehan has stated that he has met the assessee only once in M/s. Oberai Hotels. We would like to reiterate that the AO has to conclusively prove that the assessee had obtained the money from the source other than Mr. Rahul Ahuja or that Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the disallowance in any case, without adjudicating the matter afresh as pointed out by your goodself. The preconceived notion stems from the fact that the CBI has conducted enquiry at the assessee's premises and seized money from the assessee. It is submitted by the assessee that the AO has erroneously arrived at a conclusion, without appreciating the facts of the case in merits. The primary point that should be noted here is that the assessee has explained its source of income beyond doubt. Moreover, the purchaser as well as the brokers had come forward on the issue of summons under Section 131 and proved their genuinity before the AO. Thirdly, the purchaser had further established his source of income for Rs. 2 crores and hence the primary preconditions of 'Unexplained investment/ unaccounted cash' has been satisfied and moreover, the AO also did not bring on anything positive to prove it otherwise. In this regard, the assessee would like to rely on the following decisions: Shri. Birbal Ram Meera Vs ITO (ITA No.410/JP/2011, A.Y. : 2003-04) wherein it was held that the certain discrepancies in the statement of the parties with respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation is found to be reasonable that in the property business, there are times to withdraw the cash and if unutilized, the same will be re-deposited. The period of withdrawal and deposit is not inordinate to raise any other assumption. In view thereof, we are unable to uphold the orders of lower authorities on this view. The addition made is deleted. " Our case is similar to that of the above case. The AO had made additions merely based on assumptions and surmises and the jurisdictional Delhi ITAT rightly deleted it. We further rely on the decision of jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of a. CIT vs., Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. [ (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Delhi) ] - wherein it was held that when the complete particulars are furnished to AO and the AO has not conducted enquiry in to the same or has no material in his possession to show that those particulars are false and cannot be acted upon, then no addition can be made under Section 68. We would also like to draw a parlance to the assessment completed based on information received by Investigation vis-a-vis assessment completed based on the CBI enquiry. In this regard, we would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Vihar, New Delhi. In the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the course of the search operation, the appellant claimed that he had sold the agricultural land comprising of 50 acres for an amount of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- whereas the alleged buyer/purchaser Mr. Rahul Ahuja as well as the alleged broker Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma claimed that the alleged deal was for 30 acres of land and fixed for an amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-. The alleged Memorandum of Understanding was executed on 12.4.2010 and the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was received on 21.4.2010 i.e. one day prior to the search, whereas the appellant in his statement categorically stated that no provisional agreement was signed. The alleged broker Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma denied to have met the appellant in Hotel Oberoi, whereas the appellant claimed that he received an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- from Mr. Sharma at Hotel Oberoi. It is also an important fact to bring on record that admittedly, the alleged deal for the sale of land was initiated in February, 2010 and the land was not transferred till the date the alleged buyer/purchaser claimed to have filed a suit for recovery of the advance amount. It w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ace to mention that he could have as well made the payment by cheque due to the fact that the nature of land transacted was an agricultural land which was not taxable. Reference is drawn here to the question nos. 10, 11 and 12 and replies given by Sh. Rahul Ahuja the buyer/purchaser recorded by the Assessing Officer on 12.3.2013 which is extracted below : Q.No.10 Why did you make payment by way of cash. Ans. I was informed that the agriculture land is bought from farmers, who prefer to take cash, and not by cheque, because they want payment in hard cash, because they want full payment before transfer of the deal. Q.No.11 But Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh was a non-farmer maintaining bank accounts then why did you pay him cash. Ans. He was ready to accept cash, I gave him choice of cash/cheque. Q.No.12 Please explain your sources of cash in hand as on 12.4.2010 Rs. 21 lakhs and on 21.4.2010 Rs. 1.80 crores. Ans. On 29.1.2010 I made cash withdrawal of Rs. 1.75 crores from my bank a/c no. 049010200029078 in Axis Bank, GK-1, Delhi. There was another withdrawal of Rs. 20 lakhs on 2.2.2010 from the same account. There were other withdrawals ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the course of the appeal proceedings, it was only when the appellant was asked to produce the ownership document, these facts saw the light that the grandfather of the appellant Sh. Sawan Singh was not the absolute and sole owner of the survey numbers mentioned in the sale document but was a co-purchaser to the extent of 30/130 share in revised survey numbers, and the extent of the land holding was approximately 4 acres of land. Therefore, the contents of the will/testament is also doubtful as one of the witness to the will was the father of the appellant Dr. S. S. Giani Singh. 7.1.4. In the course of the appeal proceedings, the AR of the appellant was asked to file the ownership document of the agricultural land. In response to the same, the AR of the appellant filed the following documents - a) Will/testament executed by Sh. Sawan Singh S/o Late Sh. Arjan Singh in favour of Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh S/o Dr. S.S. Giani, IFS dated 5.2.1997. b) Bai namah document for an amount of Rs. 35,000/- and stamp duty of Rs. 4,375/- and two other sale deeds. c) Submission titled "Annexure of justification of cash in hand (Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh)". 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by four different groups of persons is as under :- "36(18-18-0), 37(20-1-38], 38(28-2-0], 39(24-4-0], 40(33-1-0], 44(22-0-0], 45(20-0-0], 46(3-15-0] 108 MIN (17-0-0), 109(9-14-0), 110(44-17-0), 111(15-2- 0), 119(83-3-0), 120 (15-0-0), 41(7-15-0), 42(24-0- 0), 43(17-17-0)." 7.1.7. The above said land admeasuring 252 bigha and 7 biswa was owned by the following persons with the respective share holding given as under : 1. Harish Chand S/o Hari Singh Shamsheer Singh, Iqbal Singh, Bimal Singh, Yudhvir Singh S/o Hari Chand. 2/28 share 2. Dheer Singh S/o Hari Singh Bhanu Pratap Singh, Shashi Pratap Singh, Arun Pratap Singh S/o Dheer Singh 2/28 share 3. Nekiram s/o. Gheesa Ram 2/28 share 4. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Gajadhar Singh 2/28 share. 7.1.8. According to the Bainamah document by which the grandfather of the appellant purchased the land was initially located in Dospur, Magrauli Khadar, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Sikanderabad, District Bulandshahr. Subsequently, due to the diversion of the river Yamuna the above survey nos. falling in the district of Bulandshahr were shifted to Village Vidavalli, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Biswas 20 Biswani 20 400 2.52 sq. yds 50.42 sq. yd 1008.31 sq. yds 2.11 sq. m. 42.15 sq. m 843.08 sq. m Land is measured using karam or gatha which is equal to 57.157 inches and area of 1 karam by 1 karam is a biswani. So 1 bigha is 1008.31 if multiplied from the dimensions of a biswani, 1008.33 is a third of 3025 sq. yds pakka bigha. An acre is then defined as 4 bigha + 16 biswas (4033.24 sq. yds. + 806.72 = 4839.885 sq. yds., a hair's breadth from 4840) therefore 59 bighas is equivalent to 59 bighas = 59X4033.24/4 = 59490.29 sq. yds. 12 biswas = 12X806.72/16 = 605.04 = 59490.29 + 605.04 = 60095.33 sq.yds. One acre = 4840 sq. yds 7.1.10. Therefore, the land which was sold by the above mentioned persons was only 12.416 acres and out of the seven persons that purchased the above land, Sh. Sawan Singh S/o Late Sh. Arjan Singh grandfather of the appellant was only a copurchaser to the extent of 30/130 share. The survey nos. mentioned in the sale document and that on the will/testament executed by Sh. Sawan Singh are same but the will did not contain the survey nos. that were ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve agreement. It is only a mutual consent or understanding over an issue that was reached between the parties and reduced into writing. 7.1.14. In the instant case, there is no agreement entered between the appellant and Sh. Rahul Ahuja on the basis of the MOU dated 12.4.2010. No agreement to sell pertaining to the sale of agricultural land was found in the course of search by the CBI or by the income tax department. No agreement to sell based on MOU dated 12.4.2010 was submitted by the appellant or Sh. Rahul Ahuja in the post search period or in the course of subsequent assessment proceedings or while on remand as per the directions u/s 250(4) of the I T Act. An agreement/deed entered between the parties on the basis of the MOU can only be enforceable and can be adduced as evidence before a court of law. The MOU dated 12.4.2010, in my opinion did not grant substantial rights but captured the intentions of the appellant and the purchaser/buyer. This MOU was unregistered and it does not have any sanctity pertaining to the transaction of land i.e. real estate due to the reason why an agreement usually is drawn even to lease out a residential house that mandates the so called....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and furnish papers, details and particulars. This may entail issue of notices to third parties to furnish and supply information or confirm facts or even attend as witnesses. The Assessing Officer can also refer to incriminating material or evidence available with him and call upon the assessee to file their, response. We cannot lay down or state a general or universal procedure or method which should be adopted by the Assessing Officer when verification of facts is required. The manner and mode of conducting assessment proceedings has to be left to the discretion of the Assessing Officer, and the same should be just, fair and should not cause any harassment to the assessee or third persons from whom confirmation or verification is required. The verification and investigation should be done with the least amount of intrusion, inconvenience or harassment especially to third parties, who may have entered into transactions with the assessee. The ultimate finding of the Assessing Officer should reflect due application of mind on the relevant facts and the decision should take into consideration the entire material, which is germane and which should not be ignored and exclude that which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the whole catena of sections starting from s. 68 have been introduced into the taxing enactments step by step in order to plug loopholes and in order to place certain situations beyond doubt even though there were judicial decisions covering some of the aspects. For example, even long prior to the introduction of s. 68 in the statute book, courts had held that - Where any amounts were found credited in the books of the assessee in the previous year and the assessee offered no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered was, in the opinion of the ITO, not satisfactory, the sums so credited could be charged to income tax as income of the assessee of a relevant previous year. Section 68 was in served in the I. T. Act, 1961, only to provide statutory recognition to a principle which has been clearly adumbrated in judicial decisions." 7.1.17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC) held as under : "The burden placed upon the assessee is not discharged by any fantastic explanation. Nor it is the law that any and every narration by the assessee must be accepted. It must be an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce or device may apparently show the income as accruing to another person, at the same time making it available for use and enjoyment to the assessee as in a case falling within s. 44D or mask the true character of the income by disguising it as a capital receipt as in a case falling within s. 44E or assume diverse other forms....But there must be some artifice or device enabling the assessee to avoid payment of tax on what is really and in truth his income. If the assessee parts with his income producing asset, so that the right to receive income arising from the asset which, therefore, belonged to the assessee is transferred to and vested in some other person, there is no avoidance of tax liability: no part of the income from the asset goes into the hands of the assessee in the shape of income or under any guise..." 7.1.22. In view of the above discussion, in my opinion the entire alleged transaction of the sale of land against which the appellant received an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- but a sham transaction and an afterthought event, as there are several lapses, lacunae, gaps, inconsistent version, variation in the statement and facts and also after relying on the vari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the statements recorded by the A.O. Since MOU was kept by Shri Rahul Ahuja who paid the advance to the assessee, therefore, documents were not found at the premises of the assessee at the time of seizure by the CBI or the Income Tax Department. Shri Rahul Ahuja was having sufficient amount in his bank account and cash was withdrawn from his Bank account for making payment to the assessee, therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also submitted that when deal was in its earlier stages, there were probably several options that may be under discussion between the two parties. Initially, the deal was for 50 Acres of land, but, later on it was meant for 30 Acres of land. Such facts are mentioned in the MOU. There is no formal agreement executed between the parties for sale of the agricultural land. Since the parties confirmed the transaction with the assessee, therefore, the authorities below should not have denied the claim of assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which proceedings before Criminal Court have been stayed. He has submitted that since receipt was with the purchaser who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dates on which the event took place. The conversation clearly reveal that it was a bribe amount to be paid. The mobile calls of the assessee was being intercepted by CBI. Had Shri Rahul Ahuja or Shri Sharma actually met the assessee on 21.04.2010, they must have called the assessee on 20.04.2010 or 21.04.2010 to confirm the place, date and time of the meeting before alleged delivery of cash. The transcript of the mobile conversation of the assessee was obtained by the assessee from the CBI Court. The assessee never produced any details before the authorities below to prove its case. The Ld. CIT(A) has gone in detail regarding land inherited by the assessee from his grand father which was about 4 Acres only. However, in the MOU, there is mention of land of 30 Acres. Therefore, contents of the land documents are also not reliable. The MOU is also a sham transaction. The matter was also examined at appellate stage and nothing in favour of assessee was found. It was noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that Shri Rahul Ahuja filed a suit against the assessee on 21.01.2013 itself, the date on which, he was summoned by the A.O. to explain the alleged purchase of agricultural land. The issue has to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statements of assessee and others with regard to month of the first meeting, place of meeting, area of land to be sold and sale consideration which is not explained by the assessee through any reliable and cogent evidence. The figure of the sale consideration is also differed as assessee has stated it to be Rs. 2 crores received as advance, but, other 02 persons stated it to be Rs. 2.01 crores. Shri Rahul Ahuja while explaining the source has stated in his statement that he has withdrawn the cash from his Bank account in January and February, 2010, but, did not explain why huge cash was kept when he was having banking facility. There is a significant gap between cash withdrawn from the Bank account of Shri Rahul Ahuja in January and February, 2010 and allegedly paid to the assessee in April, 2010. The assessee failed to explain this discrepancy as well. Shri Rahul Ahuja filed suit against the assessee on 23.01.2013 after lapse of several years when the matter was going on at assessment stage. The inconsistencies in the statements of these persons have not been explained by assessee. Thus, there are serious doubts about the alleged transaction of sale of land. It is highly unbelieva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the persons have been recorded by the CBI. Nothing have been explained in this regard with regard to allegations made against the assessee and others in the charge-sheet submitted by the CBI and reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and that there was substantial gap between withdrawal of cash by Shri Rahul Ahuja and alleged payment to the assessee. Therefore, assessee has failed to explain source of the cash of Rs. 2 crores found from his possession during the course of search by the CBI. The entire case set-up by the assessee is clearly an afterthought. The MOU and receipt are sham documents and fabricated by the assessee and others later on which fact is further strengthened by the fact that no original of MOU and receipt have been produced before the authorities below. Otherwise, the same could have been subjected to verification by CFSL. Copy of the MOU was produced, but, it was not having the back side which could have throw light on the fact as to when the said stamp paper were purchased and whether stamp papers were genuine or not. All these facts and circumstances clearly prove....