TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment of the assessee when there is no relation with the alleged land transaction of the assessee. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer has erred in enhancing the addition to Rs. 1,13,00,000/- on substantive basis from Rs. 1,24,99,000/- made by the learned Assessing Officer on protective basis without bringing any material on record only on the basis of statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta which was given only to save himself from the tax liability. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer has erred in giving the finding that the land deal was made by Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain and he is the person who purchased the land and sold to Navratan Kothari and Vimal Chand Surana and Shri Madan Mohan Gupta was only name lender. 5. The assessee craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Ground nos. 1 & 2 are regarding validity of reopening of assessment. 2. The assessee is an Individual and filed his return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses and the AO has finally made addition of Rs. 1,24,99,000/- on protective basis which shows that there was no material to arrive at a definite belief that the income of Rs. 11.59 crores has escaped assessment. The ld. A/R has further submitted that though the ld. CIT (A) has converted protective assessment into substantive but to the extent of Rs. 1,13,00,000/-. Therefore, the AO was having no reason to believe that an income of Rs. 11.59 crores has escaped assessment. The ld. A/R has further submitted that the land transaction alleged by the AO has no connection with the assessee as there was no such transaction between the assessee and Shri Madan Mohan Gupta or through Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. The seized material as referred by the AO does not show any such transaction between the assessee and Shri Madan Mohan Gupta or any transaction of purchase of land by the assessee otherwise. The AO has made addition on protective basis which has no relevance with the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. Thus when no addition was made with reference to the reasons recorded, then the AO is precluded in making any other addition while framing the reassessment. In support of his c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fact that the seized materials do not discharge any income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 130 ITR 1 (SC) and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that action under section 148 is not warranted on mere suspicion or rumor. Similarly in the case of Phoolchand Bajrang Lal vs. CIT, 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is open to the assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief and the belief was not bonafide one or based on vague, irrelevant and no specific information. Hence, the ld. A/R has submitted that the AO was unable to substantiate information/belief of escapement of income of Rs. 11.59 crores as in the reassessment proceedings he has made an addition of Rs. 1.47 crore on protective basis. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 29 DTR 325 as well as decision in the case of Smt. Farzana F. Desai vs. ACIT, 14 DTR 552 and submitted that when ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O has considered the seized material, the details of which are as under :- Sr. Annexure No. & Exhibit No. Page No. Found/Seized from 1. Annexure A Exhibit -1 15 to 24, 27, 28, 43, 44 and 69 to 74 Residential premises 2. Annexure-A Exhibit-2 47 and back side of 48, 50 to 54 Residential premises 3. Annexure-A Exhibit-5 1 to 77 Residential premises 4. Annexure0 AS Exhibit-1 1 to 3, 7, 9, 10 Office premises During the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act carried on 23rd May, 2013 statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta was recorded wherein he has explained the transactions as found in the seized material which is a diary maintained by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. He has stated that the transactions as per these entries recorded in the seized material pertain to the land deal at village Chainpura behind EP Jaipur which was purchased by the assessee through Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. Thus Shri Madan Mohan Gupta has stated in the statement that the entire purchase consideration was given by the assessee to him for purchase of the said land. The AO accordingly proposed to reopen the assessment by recording reasons as unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant to see whether the seized material has a direct connection to indicate that an income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. The documents as referred by the AO in the reasons recorded are the pages of the diary in which various transactions are recorded in the name of different persons and against specific dates. The relevant pages as referred by the AO are placed at pages 16 to 21 of the paper book which are as under :- It is evident from the entries recorded in the seized material that all these entries are started from 31st December, 2007 onwards and subsequent entries in the year 2008, 2009 and 2010. In most of the entries specific name though the initials were mentioned and, therefore, these are not in the name of the assessee. Thus from the seized material which is referred by the AO in thereasons recorded, there is nothing to disclose any entry of payment of money by the assessee to Shri Madan Mohan Gupta during the year under consideration. Once the entries recorded in the seized material do not pertain to the year under consideration then the statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta cannot be relied upon without any corroborating evidence and specifically when the tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wners then on the basis of material which was available before the AO, it cannot be said that an income of Rs. 11.59 crores has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. Further, the AO while framing the assessment has made an addition of Rs. 1,24,99,000/- on protective basis which itself manifest and established the fact that the reasons to form the belief by the AO for reopening of the assessment is not based on any tangible material to show that the income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus it is clear that the AO has formed the belief only on presumption and not on the basis of material as referred in the reasons. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment merely on the basis of suspicion and presumption which is not supported by even the material as referred in the reasons recorded and available with the AO then the reopening of the assessment is not valid and liable to be quashed. We accordingly quash the reopening of the assessment as invalid and consequently the reassessment framed is also set aside being not sustainable. Since we have quashed the reopening of the assessment being not valid, therefore, the other grounds raised by the assessee as well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The AO stated in the order that during the search and seizure action on 23rd May, 2013 incriminating materials were found in the shape of papers/bills/vouchers/diary/register which were seized and annexed as Annexure 'A' Exhibit 1-8. The AO further noted that as per the transactions recorded in the seized papers to the tune of Rs. 12,30,84,000/-, a sum of Rs. 7,19,50,000/- relates to the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs. 3,86,35,000/- related to assessment year 2010-11. Since these transactions were not recorded in the books of the assessee but found in the papers and seized material, therefore, the AO issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the amount of Rs. 7,19,50,000/- should not be treated as income for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee filed his reply and objected to the addition. The assessee denied having any connection with the alleged land transaction as found recorded in the diary seized from the premises of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. Accordingly, the AO after considering the facts, substantive addition of the amount has been made in the hands of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Annexures as referred in the assessment order then it is not the case of incriminating material found or seized during the search and seizure action. He has relied upon the order of the AO. He has further submitted that the ld. CIT (A) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the AO and sustaining only Rs. 50,00,000/-. He has further submitted that in the remand report, the AO has clearly made out an addition of Rs. 5,55,84,000/- and recommended the same for substantive basis. 9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that a search and seizure action under section 132 was carried out in the case of the assessee and group/associates of the assessee. Therefore, when the search action was taken in the case of the assessee, then as per the provisions of section 153A the AO is bound to assess or reassess the income of the assessee for 6 assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted or requisition was made. There is no dispute that the assessment year under consideration is falling within the 6 assessment years as provided under section 153A a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which was assessed on the original return of income. Accordingly, we will deal with this issue while considering the ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal and the ground raised by the revenue in the cross appeal. 10. Ground no. 2 & 3 of the assessee and ground of the revenue are regarding the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- sustained by ld. CIT (A) under section 68 of the IT Act. This ground is common as the revenue has also challenged the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A) to the extent of the addition deleted by ld. CIT (A). The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the additions sustained by ld. CIT (A) is based on the wrong presumption and assumption of the fact as there was no such addition made by the AO in the assessment order whereas the addition made by the AO on protective basis has been deleted by the ld. CIT (A) and, therefore, the subsequent addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- is not sustainable as it is not based on any material or evidence. The ld. CIT (A) in the detailed discussion while deciding the issue has given the finding in favour of the assessee whereas only in a table as at pag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duly considered. On perusal of assessment order it is seen that the said protective addition made by the AO, pertains to land dealings of chainpura behind EP. As per working given in para no. 2.1.8.5, following additions are required to be made in case of followings in AYs as under : AY Name Addition required to be made Under sec./nature of addition 2008-09 Navrattan Kothari Rs. 15,87,19,309/- Undisclosed investment made in cash u/s 68 2008-09 Vimal Chand Surana HUF Rs. 2,64,66,445/- Undisclosed investment made in cash u/s 68 2008-09 Kaushal Chand Surana* Rs. 1,32,13,382/- Undisclosed investment made in cash u/s 68 2008-09 Rajendra Kr Jain* Rs. 3,20,00,000/- Undisclosed investment made in cash u/s 68 2008-09 Rajendra Kr. Jain* Rs. 8,32,55,232/- Undisclosed business profit. 2007-08 Rajendra Kr Jain Rs. 1,13,00,000/- Undisclosed investment made in cash u/s 68 (Direction for AO u/s 150(1) of the Act to re-open u/s 147 of the of the case for Sh. Rajendra Kr. Jain and Sh Kaushal Chand Surana for AY 08-09) In case of Chainpura land dealings, no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 27.12.2017 has considered and decided an identical issue in para 5 as under :- "5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 24.09.2010 and therefore, undisputedly the time limit for issuing the notice u/s 143(2) on the return of income filed u/s 139(1) expired on 30.09.2011. A search in the case of the assessee was conducted on 17.07.2013 and as on the date of search the assessment for the year under consideration was not pending. Thus, it is clear that the notice issued by the AO u/s 153A consequent to the search carried out u/s 132 is for reassessment of income of the assessee. We further note that in the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has accepted the income declared by the assessee in the original return of income except a disallowance of Rs. 26,183/- on account of employees contribution to ESI and PF. The entire assessment order is silent about any of the incriminating document found or seized during the course of search and seizure action and therefore, it is clear that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) as well as the above two decisions and observed as under: "31. What distinguishes the decisions both in CIT v. Chetan Das Lachman Das (supra), and Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT-IV (supra) in their application to the present case is that in both the said cases there was some material unearthed during the search, whereas in the present case there admittedly was none. Secondly, it is plain from a careful reading of the said two . decisions that they do not hold that additions can be validly made to income forming the subject matter of completed assessments prior to the search even if no incriminating material whatsoever was unearthed during the search. 32. Recently by its order dated 6th July 2015 in ITA No. 369 of 2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd.), this Court declined to frame a question of law in a case where, in the absence of any incriminating material being found during the search under Section 132 of the Act, the Revenue sought to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act and make an addition under Section 68 of the Act on bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... context of the entire section. The words 'assess' or 'reassess'-have been used at more than one place in the Section and a harmonious construction of the entire provision would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the word assess has been used in the context of an abated proceedings and reassess has been used for completed assessment proceedings, which would not abate as they are not pending on the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition and which would also necessarily support the interpretation that for the completed assessments, the same can be tinkered only based on the incriminating material found during the course of search or requisition of documents."' 60. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court also took note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corpn (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78/232 Taxman 270/374 ITR 645 (Bom.) which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no additions in respect of any issue can be made to the assessment under Section 153A and 153C of the Act. The legal position was thereafter s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." 61. It appears that a number of High Courts have concurred with the decision of this Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) beginning with the Gujarat High Court in Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra). There, a search and seizure operation was carried out on 7th October, 2009 and an assessment came to be framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A(1)(b) in determining the total income of the Assessee of Rs. 14.5 crores against declared income of Rs. 3.44 crores. The ITAT deleted the additions on the ground that it was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of the search in respect of AYs under consideration i.e., AY 2006-07. The Gujarat High Court referred to the decision in Kabul Chawla(supra), of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) (supra) and one earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. Similarly, sub-section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under section 153A of the Act is annulled in appeal or any other proceeding. 16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is "well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading or the Section can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion of the section and if there is no ambiguity in the language or if it is plain and clear, then the heading used in the section strengthens that meaning. From the heading of section 153. the intention of the Legislature is clear, viz., to provide for assessment in case of search and requisition. When the very purpose of the provision is to make assessment In case of search or requisition, it goes without saying that the assessment has to have relation to the search or requisition, in other words, the assessment should connected With something round during the search or requisition viz., incriminating material which reveals undisclosed income. Thus, while in view of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the decision of this court In the case of CIT v. Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia (supra) wherein it has been held that while it cannot be disputed that considering section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years ; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year.' 62. Subsequently, in Devangi alias Rupa (supra), another Bench of the Gujarat High Court reiterated the above legal position following its earlier decision in Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra) and of this Court in Kabul Chawla (supra). As far as Karnataka High Court is concerned, it has in IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. (supra) followed the decision of this Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) and held that there had to be incriminating material qua each of the AYs in which additions were sought to be made pursuant to search and seizure operation. The Calcutta High Court in Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (supra), too, followed the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere not maintaining regular books of accounts and the transactions were not recorded therein. 66. Further, in answer to Question No. 11, the Assessee in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra) was confronted with certain documents seized during the search. The answer was categorical and reads thus: "Ans:- I hereby admit that these papers also contend details of various transactions include purchase/sales/manufacturing trading of Gutkha, Supari made in cash outside Books of accounts and these are actually unaccounted transactions made by our two firms namely M/s. Asom Trading and M/s. Balaji Perfumes." 67. By contrast, there is no such statement in the present case which can be said to constitute an admission by the Assessee of a failure to record any transaction in the accounts of the Assessee for the AYs in question. On the contrary, the Assessee herein stated that, he is regularly maintaining the books of accounts. The disclosure made in the sum of Rs. 1.10 crores was only for the year of search and not for the earlier years. As already noticed, the books of accounts maintained by the Assessee in the present case have been accepted by the AO. In response to questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nating material qua the AY for which he sought to make additions of franchisee commission. 70. The above distinguishing factors in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), therefore, do not detract from the settled legal position in Kabul Chawla(supra) which has been followed not only by this Court in its subsequent decisions but also by several other High Courts. 71. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that the ITAT was justified in holding that the invocation of Section 153A by the Revenue for the AYs 2000-01 to 2003-04 was without any legal basis as there was no incriminating material qua each of those AYs. Conclusion 72. To conclude: (i) Question (i) is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that in the facts and circumstances, the Revenue was not justified in invoking Section 153A of the Act against the Assessee in relation to AYs 2000-01 to AYs 2003-04? (ii) Question (ii) is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that with reference to AY 2004-05, the ITAT was correct in confirming the orders of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hemang Construction Pvt. Ltyd. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/ (substantive basis) on the basis of page no. 64 of annexure-A exhibit-1 pertains to Jamna Vihar, Teelawala property seized from residential premises of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in giving the finding that the land deal was made by Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain and he is the person who purchased the land and sold to Navratan Kothari and Vimal Chand Surana and Shri Madan Mohan Gupta was only name lender. 5. The assessee craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." ITA No. 521/JP/2017 (Revenue) : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) was right in deleting the protective addition of Rs. 3,86,35,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment quantified on the basis of seized documents when the substantive addition made in the hands of Sh Madan Mohan Gupta has also been deleted by the ld. CIT (A) in a separate order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ates to the transaction of purchase of plot by the assessee. Further, there is no name, date against any of the transactions and, therefore, it is not clear from the seized material that which year this transaction pertains to. The seized material was found from the possession of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta and the same can be considered for assessing the undisclosed income of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta and not in the hands of the assessee. These documents are dumb without mentioning dates, names or nature of transaction. Therefore, the same cannot be a basis for making the addition. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Moolchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT dated 20th February, 2009 in MA No. 93/JP/2008 arising out of ITSSA No. 24/JP/2005. The AO has not made out the case of linking these transactions with the business affairs of the assessee, thus the AO has failed to discharge his duty and making the addition in the hands of the assessee. Some of the transactions are having the dates which pertain to financial year 2008-09 and, therefore, are not related to the assessment year under consideration. The ld. A/R has referred to Annexu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Pvt. Ltd. All the 12 plots were adjoining to the existing plot of M/s. Hemang Construction Pvt. Ltd which does not have any excess to the road. This fact has been explained by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta that these plots were purchased on behalf of the assessee and particularly on behalf of the company M/s. Hemang Construction Pvt. Ltd. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 18. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. As per the pages 55-58 of Annexure-1 of seized material, the AO noted that there are total 18 plots purchased by M/s. Hemang Construction Pvt. Ltd. through the Director Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, the assessee. The said action of purchase of land completed in the months of May and June, 2009. The AO further noted that as per the details of the plots given in the sale deed, 12 plots are matching as found in page 57. However, in the sale deed, numbers were not mentioned in respect of 2 plots. Therefore, the AO has taken all the 12 plots found recorded at page 57 of the seized material as the transaction in which on money of Rs. 1,01,99,728/- was paid by the assessee. The relevant details of plots and finding of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Thus, substantive addition of Rs. 1,01,99,728/- is hereby made in the total income of the assessee as unaccounted investment in purchase of plots. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income/for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are being initiated separately." The AO has admitted this fact and it is also a matter of undisputed fact that these plots of land were purchased by M/s. Hemang Construction Pvt. Ltd. and assessee as well as Shri Madan Mohan Gupta were the directors of the said company. The details found recorded at page 57 of the Annexure-1 of seized material shows the difference between the amounts of purchase consideration shown in the sale deed and the actual sale consideration paid in respect of these plots. Without going into the controversy whether these two amounts as found in the seized material represent the on-money for purchase of the plot of land, we note that the transaction of purchase is in the name of M/s. Hemang Construction Pvt. Ltd. and not in the name of the assessee. Thus the AO has presumed that on money has been paid by the assessee from his undisclosed income on the basis of statement of Shri Mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them." Thus it is clear that if an order is made on the basis of the statement of an witness without giving an opportunity of cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... anything from Shri Mool Chand. However, the AO finally made the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee and a protective addition was made in the hands of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before ld. CIT (A) but could not succeed. 20. We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and has considered the relevant material on record. The page 64 of Annexure-A Exhibitg-1 of the seized material has been scanned by the AO at page 17 of his order as under :- Thus it is clear that these notings of the amount has been made on specific dates and in the name of Shri Mool Chand. The AO has treated the said payment as made by the assessee to Shri Mool Chand on the basis that in the past a group company of the assessee namely M/s. Moonstone Apartments Pvt. Ltd. has purchased land from Shri Mool Chand. However, the said transaction of purchase of land happened on 3rd June, 2005. However, the AO has not brought on record anything to show that there was any other transaction of purchase of land by the assessee or any group concern of the assessee during the year 2010 and, therefore, these notings in the diary can be related to the said tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee to cross examine while deciding the issue in ground no. 2. Accordingly the addition made by the AO is not sustainable and the same is deleted. 21. In the cross appeal the revenue has challenged the order of the ld. CIT (A) whereby the protective addition of Rs. 3,86,35,000/- made by the AO was deleted by the ld. CIT (A). This issue is common as the issue raised by the revenue for the assessment year 2009-10. Accordingly, in view of our finding for the assessment year 2009-10, we do not find any merit or substance in the appeal of the revenue. The same is dismissed. ITA NO. 295/JP/2017 (ASSESSEE) : A.Y. 2011-12 : 22. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in passing the order u/s 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab initio deserves to be quashed. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- on account of unaccounted investment in purchase of plot/on the basis of papers seized from residential premi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cordingly in view of our finding on this issue for the assessment year 2010-11, the ground no. 2 stands adjudicated in favour of the assessee. The addition made by the AO is accordingly deleted. 27. Ground No. 3 is regarding an addition of Rs. 8,40,227/- by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the IT Act. The assessee sold a plot No. D-10, Kesav Vihar, Jaipur on 21st April, 2010 for a sum of Rs. 6,25,000/- and paid capital gain tax. The AO in the assessment completed under section 153A has adopted the full value consideration at Rs. 14,65,227/- on the basis of a report of Sub-Registrar Stamps, Jaipur. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and contended that when DLC rates were not available for the area in which the plot of land in question is situated, was sold by the assessee then the provisions of section 50C cannot be applied. Further, the value adopted by the AO is not based on the Stamp Valuation for the plot in question but the Sub-Registrar Stamps has given the DLC rates of Siddharth Nagar 'A' block and has clearly stated that DLC rates for Kesav Vihar were not fixed by the authorities. The ld. CIT (A) did not accept the contention of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration. Once the assessee has raised the objection against the adoption of the DLC rates of an adjoining area instead of the area in which the plot in question situated, the AO and ld. CIT (A) ought to have referred the matter to the DVO for determination of fair market value of the plot in question which could be taken as full value consideration. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the issue to the record of the AO for re-adjudication of the same after making the reference to the DVO regarding determination of fair market value of the plot in question and thereafter after considering the objection, if any, of the assessee to decide the issue as per law. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 30. In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 293/JP/2017 is allowed, ITA No. 408/JP/2017, 294/JP/2017 and 295/JP/2017 are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue in ITA No. 519/JP/2017, 520/JP/2017 & 521/JP/2017 are dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 28/03/2018. ============= Document 1 152 2007-08 151025 124327000 - 1243 on 242 RPS NOTES 123084 -000 Cheng's G.Ram. 96,10,2017 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17/12/ 21/12/ 6:1 Important 30,000 G.RM -6, 500f 10. 5,0001-RPS Document 3 RPS (17) 1579 1,000200 ह. अशोक Exar NOTES 3,000 3 RPS 3191 2,000.00 1200 RRS 619) 4,000 EFT --8191 ✓ 2,000 o اور Ùˆ 5,500-10 Ô¿ 18191✓ 28191 ✓ 30/915 1,000200 RPS 5,000= 10 ह पाने कलीर 10,500 2 0 RES 11/10/08 10,000 & WAL -C22/108: 10,000 no RPS... 25/10/08/20 3/11/08/5, 25/11/08/5,000 = 15/11/08 10,000. 932 -$3,000 " 31/12/08/3,00021 Et RPS 0 केन है कमल 15/1/09 4,000 = RPS. 15 180,000 20 СинаÑму 180,000 29/1/09 Important 2/2/09 4. orozco RPS/ 913109 2002 RPS Just3/09 30., oroko 14/14/09 26, owl 7GRA 2.63 0181 So, rolo Ashok 9.02,0001 2193, 0001. 50,0001. W A NOTES TRUE COP ODDA g 263 246 2th 10.45,000/- 9.02 1. go. 50 11-32 1). 9 37 3 6% 283 6/5/09 FIT 5, Ris 245/09 3,000....