AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us of explaining the seized document was not on the assessee as the property can easily be identified from details mentioned in the loose sheet and thus onus was on the assessee. 3. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other." 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee-company was carrying on the business of real estate developers and have constructed commercial projects for sale. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that a letter was received along with related seized document from the office of ld. ACIT, Central Circle-21, New Delhi along with satisfaction note dated 01.12.2011 for issuance of notice u/s.153C. Further, on examination of the seized documents found from the premises of Shri Lalit Modi, the Assessing Officer of the assessee was satisfied that the seized Annexure A-1 is related to the assessee-company and after recording the reasons, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) on 28.03.2013. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that as per the seized document, the commercial space sold by the assessee to Shri Kamal Kishore Chaurasia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is regard reads as under: "11.4 During the assessment proceedings, statement of Mr. KK Chaurasia was recorded, who categorically denied of making any payments to the appellant other than what agreed upon as per the registered agreement and other dues for this transaction. An addition was made for the said amount in the hands of Mr. KK Chaurasia also as unexplained investment for having given such amount to the appellant otherwise than by cheque, which was deleted by the CIT(A)-12, New Delhi vide her order in A.No.417/2013-14 dated 21.11.2013 on the reason that it is a jotting on the loose sheet, without any basis and made in the absence of any corroborative material. 11.5 Further, since the document was found and seized from the premises of Mr. Lalit Modi therefore it is to be explained by him only as per the provisions of section 292C. He explained this to be a rough paper having some jottings and of no relevance. As mentioned earlier, during assessment proceeding also he denied having any relation with the appellant and confirmed of having no such transaction. No business linkages has been established. It was stated to be the loose sheet with some jottings and cannot be e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Mr. Lalit Modi who has categorically denied of any such transaction. It is also an admitted fact that name of the assessee nowhere appeared in the said document albeit the name of Shri Kamal Kishore Chaurasia that he has entered into an agreement for sale of commercial property in Cross River Mall has been mentioned. Apart from that, the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that this addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee for the reason that, firstly, the name of the assessee is not mentioned in the seized document; secondly, there is no corroborative evidence or any statement that the payment has been received by the assessee other than cheque amount as entered in the sale agreement; and lastly, on the bare perusal of the document it cannot be inferred or concluded that seized document belongs to or has any nexus with the assessee. Here, in this case, as pointed out by the ld. counsel similar matter had come for consideration before Tribunal in the case of Mr. Kamal Kishore Chaurasia where exactly same addition has been made based on same seized documents that the amount of Rs. 7,62,92,143/- is an unexplained investment. The Tribunal in a very detailed order has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issuance of a notice to the Assessee under Section 153C of the Act: "30.6.2011Satisfaction note for issue of notice u/s. 153C of the IT Act. Name of the Assessee Smt. Vinita Chaurasia PAN: AAFPC4589D Search and seizure action under Section 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out on 19th June 2009 at the residential as well as business premises of Shri Lalit Modi at Lajpat Nagar- II, New Delhi. During the course of pendency of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Lalit Modi for AY 2004-05 to 2010-11 (u/s.153A/143(3) the material seized from the ITA Nos. 1004 of 2015 & 1005 of 2015Page 5of 14premises of the Assessee has been examined. After examining such seized material I am satisfied that the following seized documents belong to persons other than Shri Lalit Modi. The detail of such paper is as under: Annexure No. Page No. of Annexure Brief description of documents Person to whom the document belongs Ann A-1 5 These papers contain detail of transaction entered in by Smt. Vinita Chaurasia for acquisition of property at Vasant Square Mall Smt. Vinita Chaurasia 2. On the basis of document found and seized enquiries were conducted during the course of pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessee's appeal was disposed of by the CIT (A) by an order dated 25th March, 2013. The appeal was allowed in part. The operative portion of the order of the CIT (A) read as under: "15. Thus considering the receipt and the payment side of the unaccounted transactions on the seized paper, identified as page 5 of Annexure A-1 the total addition to be made in the case of the appellant are as follows: In AY 10-11, addition of Rs. 21,93,41,222 (Rs. 22,59,11,969 - Rs. 65,70,747). This comprises of Rs. 16,42,68,522, which is the cash component of the total sale consideration of Rs. 32,85,37,354; and Rs. 59,56,943 appearing as 'to Refund' and Rs. 4,91,15,757 appearing as 'To Pay', which had remained to be added by the AO and in respect of which the notice for enhancement was issued." 10. The net result was that there was an enhancement of the assessable income by of the Assessee by Rs. 5,50,72,700. 11. Both the Revenue and the Assessee filed appeals before the ITAT which came to be disposed of by the impugned order. Interestingly it may be also mentioned that Revenue's appeal in the case of Mr. Lalit Modi was also heard along with these two appeals. The Revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is that of a photocopy of a sale deed which contains the names of the vendor and the vendee being found with the broker. The mere fact that such photocopy of the sale deed was found with the broker would not lead to the conclusion that such a document 'belongs to' either the vendor or the vendee. While in the present case the AO in his satisfaction note does record that the document in question does not belong to Mr. Lalit Modi i.e. the searched person, he does not indicate on what basis he proceeds as if the document belonged to the Assessee. 17. In this context, it requires to be noticed that a very detailed interrogation of Mr. Lalit Modi in relation to this document took place, the relevant portions of which have been extracted by the ITAT in the impugned order. Question No. 25 posed to Mr. Modi and his answer there to reads as under: "Q.25. I am showing you page no. 5 to 8 of Annexure A-1, please explain the contents. Ans: Pages no. 5 to 8 are rough planning on page 5 proposal from Vasant Square Mall for sale was received and the deal did not materialise through me." 18. The above statement was made in the course of the search. In the assessment proceedings in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessee. In the meanwhile, the search and seizure operation took place. 20. There is no material whatsoever placed on record by the Revenue before the CIT (A) or the ITAT to justify the invocation of Section 153C of the Act against the Assessee on the basis that the above document belonged to her. 21. Turning to the decisions cited by Mr. Shivpuri it is seen that in Principal Commissioner of Income tax-8 v. Super Malls (P.) Ltd. (supra), a pen drive was recovered from the residence of Mr. Ved Prakash Bharti who was a Director of the Assessee. The AO recorded "during the statement of Sh.Ved Prakash Bharti at the time of search, he has also stated that these documents (contained in the pen drive) pertain to him and Super Malls Pvt. Ltd., Karnal in which he is Director." It is on the basis of the above facts that this Court rejected the Assessee's contention that the said documents could not be said to belong to the Assessee. 22. As regards the decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the searched person Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, was one of the Directors of the Assessee. As noted by the Court in the course of the s....