TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,96,25,000/- made in hands of assessee without appreciating that entries of cheque on seized digital document matched with books of assessee, the name of project was written in another seized documents, i.e., MOU whose contents matched with digital seized document & hence it cannot be termed as dumb documents. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored to the above extent. As evident, the sole subject matter of appeal is addition of Rs. 196.25 Lacs. 2. We have carefully heard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... files which were inventorized as per Annexure-A, Item Nos. 1 to 8. 3.3 During search operations, one loose paper no. 23 found and seized from the residence of Shri Asit Haribhai Vora and Shri Sanket Vora indicated certain cash payment to the assessee against sale of 9 flats. As per copy of Memorandum of understanding (MOU) seized during search operations, it transpired that the assessee entered into agreement for sale of 9 flats at Wind Chimes to a firm namely M/s Raj Shah Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (REPL). The recorded cost of Rs. 44.59 Crores correlated with the amount mentioned in the MOU. In one of computer file namely total amount.xls, date-wise payment was recorded. In the said sheet, some of the transactions cash was recorded against p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s accepted by the assessee was written as Rs. 90,000/-. In Similar manner, the cash transaction written as Rs. 1,96,250/- would represent amount of Rs. 196.25 Lacs. Finally, alleged cash component of Rs. 196.25 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee as unaccounted money u/s 69A. 4.1 Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee argued that the loose paper was not found at assessee's premises. The same was neither signed nor in the handwriting of any partner of the firm and therefore, the same was merely a dumb document which could not be relied upon to make additions in the hands of the assessee. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements to support the same. The assessee also denied the contents of MOU since the same was not signed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tents of these papers were not recorded either during the search, during post-search enquiries or during assessment proceedings. No question was asked to the persons from whose residence, these papers were seized. In such circumstances, additions made on the basis of such evidences which were not confronted to anyone at any stage of investigation cannot be held justified. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held in the case of CIT v/s. S.M. Agrawal (2007)293 ITR 0043 that the only person competent to give evidence on the truthfulness of the contents of the document is the writer. Keeping in view the judgements of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the documents found during the course of search at third party are not reliable evidences ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooking of 9 flats by the REPL, the appellant contended that 3 flats have been sold to other persons and sale deeds have been filed, which are placed on records. First installment for 2 flats were received by the appellant before the date of search. This is evident from the bank account of the appellant and entries in the bank account cannot be back dated. Six flats are still unsold and reflected as closing stock in the books of accounts by REPL. In such circumstances, considering receipt of Rs. 1,96,25,000/- by the appellant from REPL in cash is not reasonable and justified. Keeping in view the discussion above, the additions made by the AO are not found sustainable factually and legally. Hence, the additions of Rs. 1,96,25,000/- are delete....