TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 949
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal without admitting the additional evidence filed under rule 46A. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee has sold the plot to Shri Narendera Choudhary for Rs. 38.50 lacs vide sale agreement dated 25- 12-2011, thereby confirming the addition of the same by:- (i) Incorrectly holding that assessee has failed to furnish any evidence to show that sale agreement was cancelled. (ii) Not dealing with the condition of the assessee that real owner of the plot is Kamal Kumar Sain and not the assessee for which the order of Court was also filed. (iii) Incorrectly holding that since the addition was made on the basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 dated 13-12-2017 in the case of Shri Navrattan Kothari vs ACIT. Thus the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that reassessment of a person other than searched person based on seized material can be made u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act vitiates the entire proceedings. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that when the AO has received the information about the transaction of an immovable property in question by the assessee through agreement dated 25-12-2011 and the said transaction was not declared nor disclosed in the return of income then the said information alongwith agreement dated 25-12-2011 constitute the tangible material to form the belief that income asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al gain on sale of Plot No. A-425 situated at Tara Nagar A, Sector 15, Khatipura Road, Jaipur which was sold through an agreement dated 25-12-2011 for a consideration of Rs. 38,50,000/- in his ROI'' It is clear from the reasons recorded that the AO has received the information regarding sale of the immovable property in question vide agreement dated 25-12-2011 for a consideration of Rs. 38.50 lacs. The assessee has not disputed the execution of the said agreement dated 25- 12-2011. However, subsequently, the assessee has claimed that the said agreement was cancelled, though during the assessment proceedings, nothing has been produced before the AO in support of the claim that agreement was cancelled subsequently. It is pertinent to note ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act are not satisfied then the AO can invoke the provisions of Section 147/148 of the Act. Hence the decision relied on by the ld.AR of the assessee in the case of Shri Navrattan Kothari vs ACIT (supra) cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. In the said case, the AO has stated in the reasons recorded that the documents were seized and forwarded by the AO of the searched person. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. Thus the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is dismissed. 3.1 The Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee are regarding addition of Rs. 38.50 lacs on account of the amount received for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived full consideration of Rs. 38.50 lacs at the time of signing of the said agreement. Therefore, the subsequent stand of the assessee that he has not received the consideration and consequently the agreement was cancelled is nothing but a self serving document prepared to avoid the tax liability. The ld. DR has further contended that alleged cancellation agreement is a self serving document of the assessee as well as other party in whose hands also the addition of the said amount was made on account of unexplained investment. The ld. DR has contended that the alleged cancellation agreement was neither found during search and seizure action nor was produced before the AO. Even the assessee never claimed before the AO that the agreement d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that said agreement was cancelled due to non-payment of the consideration. Only before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee sought to produce the additional evidence in the shape of cancellation agreement dated 25-01-2012. The ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO on the additional evidence produced by the assessee. The AO submitted his remand report dated 11-09-2018. The AO has referred to the statement of one Shri Laxman Yadav recorded on 10-09-2018 wherein he stated that at the time of signing the agreement, except the assessee and Shri Narendera Choudhary, at the residence of the assessee, no other persons were present. Even otherwise, we find that alleged cancellation agreement was not found during the course of search and seizure....