TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 486
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld CIT Appeal was wrong in facts and in law by rejecting the ground of the appellant of not providing the grounds of approval taken for making the assessment of the appellant of the appellant by the AO before the completion of the assessment. 2. That the ld CIT Appeal was wrong on facts and in law to confirm the addition of Rs. 8.75 crores based on the draft unsigned document found during search operation from a laptop belonging to the appellant based on hypothetical and surmises grounds. 3. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, each ground of appeal is independent to each other." 3. Identical grounds were raised in appeal of Mr. Sumit Mittal. 4. Briefly stated the facts shows that search and seizure on "Triveni group‟ of companies was carried out on 28/9/2010. Assessee was covered in that search also. Assessee filed his return of income on 10/12/2012 under section 153A of The Act declaring an income of Rs. 995540/- in response to notice under section 153A of the Act dated 7/2/2012. Notice under section 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 28/12/2012. Assessment under section 153A read with section 143 (3) of the act was passed on 25th of March 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are on 24 January 2007. The court appointed Commissioner has also made an effort for conversion of above property. The matter reached the court for directions to LDO. The honourable court granted a direction on 15 May 2007. However as per the steps taken by the court Commissioner, TIDCO cancelled the agreement entered into with Konark care. As nothing happened, On 14 August 2007, TIDCO re-entered into an agreement with the same company for conversion of land and expedite the process for conversion into freehold property from leasehold property. Meanwhile agreement with Konark care also went into litigation before the Honourable Delhi High Court, Konark care preferred an appeal for recovery of an amount of Rs. 18 crores from TIDCO and restraining it from dealing in the property. The Honourable Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal of the Konark Care per order dated 24/9/2009 that was further appeal by Konark care on 4/11/ 2009. On 4/11/2009 an ex parte injection was passed restraining TIDCO from dealing with the property in any manner. For removal of the above injunction, TIDCO approached Honourable Supreme Court, Honourable Supreme Court vide order dated 8/2/2010 vacated injun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deposited bank draft of Rs. 89.75 crores with the Hon. Court. On 21/4/2010 sale deed was executed in favour of the purchaser for Rs. 122 crores comprising of Rs. 117 crores of sales consideration and Rs. 5 crores of penalties. Thus, the property, which was bid by TIDCO for Rs. 117 crores on 26/9/2006, was ultimately transferred on 21 April 2010 in favour of three different individuals jointly at the same price plus a penalty of Rs. 5 crores. Thus, TIDCO recovered the sum of Bid Money of Rs. 29.25 crores paid earlier. 7. The learned assessing officer referred to the document dated 20/2/2010 where all these three purchasers agreed to pay commission of Rs. 17.5 crore to Shri Madhur Mittal and Shri Summit Mittal who are the owners and promoters of TIDCO is the subject matter of dispute. Based on the above chronology of events, the learned assessing officer took these letters dated 20/2/2010 written by three individuals to the assessee where they have agreed to pay commission of Rs. 17.5 crores to Mr. Madhur Mittal and Mr. Summit Mittal. The assessee was questioned. 8. The assessee explained that they are directors of "Triveni" Group of companies wherein the assessee with the sev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....search, there is good evidence. In view of this, he made an addition of Rs. 8.75 crores in the hands of assessee and another Rs. 8.75 crores in the hands of Mr.Summit Mittal. Accordingly, assessment under section 153A read with section 143 (3) of the act was passed on 25th of March 2013. 10. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer preferred an appeal before the learned CIT - A. He passed an order on 23 July 2014. On the arguments of the assessee before him that those documents are dumb documents, The learned CIT - A has held that it is not a dumb document, in view of the provisions of section 292C of the act and presumption available under section 132 (4A) of the act. Assesee also argued that buyers were not examined. With respect to the examination of the buyer of the property, he held that the buyer of the property could not depose against these parties as per the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Sonal construction and Urmila Lodhi. He was further of the view that as Triveni has deposited Rs. 30 crores for the purpose of purchase of the property before three years. The sales deed is executed in 2010. Therefore the property....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hows that the assessee has received the above consideration. It was further submitted that the assessing officer did not have any corroborating material whatsoever to support the action and AO has not carried out any enquiry in respect of the said matter. e. It was further stated that assessee is not the seller of the property but merely a director of the company who obtained right to get the registration of the property in favour of that company. The consideration was also agreed by the honourable High Court, therefore there was no reason or there was no purpose of paying commission to the assessee over and above agreed price. f. It was further stated that buyer of the property was not examined on this issue. g. He submitted that the addition made in the hands of the assessee only based on three unsigned letters from the buyers, which was refused by the assessee, prior to the date of search, could not result into any addition in the hands of the assessee as commission income. h. Ld AR further submitted that only the real income is required to be taxed in his hands, the sale of the property was obtained in an auction and the whole consideration w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.75 crores in the hands of the assessee is devoid of any merit. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of lower authorities. She submitted the copies of the three letters namely Kabul letter.doc, Nitin Letter.doc and Chetan letter.doc available in the working copy of annexure A - 23 of the seized documents. The learned DR vehemently supported the argument by the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in CIT versus Sonal construction [2012 - HC - 851 - Del - IT] (Delhi). 13. In rejoinder, the learned authorised representative submitted that the facts in the case of Sonal constructions (supra) are quite distinct where certain figures were found with respect to the four projects that the assessee had undertaken in the course of his business. The seized documents in fact contain figures relating to the four projects, which were admittedly undertaken by the assessee. One of the partners in that case admitted. He referred to Para no 15 of that judgment and tried to distinguish the same. However, in the present case the assessee himself denies that it has not accepted any commission and written an email prior to the date of search to these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooks of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 or survey under section 133A , it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed-(i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested. Therefore, assessee in the present case cannot deny that those documents belong to the assessee, the contents of such documents are true. Assessee is also not denying the same but trying to submit that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that there is rebuttable presumption and assessee has rebutted the presumption by producing reliable explanation. However, the real issue is that whether from these documents there is any income received by the assessee or not. If the letters of the three buyers and the reply correspondence of assessee is looked as a compendium of correspondence as "one", Assessee has clearly shown that yes as per those documents the assessee received an offer and by another document, which is totally ignored by the revenue authorities, assessee refused to accept that offer. Both receipt of offer and refusal to accept that offer- rejection- both were prior to the search and both the electronic evidences were available with the AO. However, ld AO made an addition based on offer received by assessee for those three parties completely ignoring the refusal to accept such offer by assessee. Therefore, in the present case, we do not find that part of the records found during search can be used against the assessee for taxing his income , where in other documents clearly suggest that there is no such income accruing to the assessee. Assessee has also brought on record all possible evidence which asses....