TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the assessee and what is the basis of the same, sans which substratum of reasons collapse thus resulting in making the entire proceedings as nullity. 2. That reopening made u/s 148 by Ld AO on basis of undated reasons recorded u/s 148 which has ultimately resulted in addition of Rs. 560,000 u/s 69 as confirmed by Ld CIT-A , is invalid and unlawful, as only provision which could have been used in extant facts was section 153C and not section 148 due to which entire proceedings become nullity. 3. That reopening made u/s 148 by Ld AO on basis of undated reasons recorded u/s 148 which has ultimately resulted in addition of Rs. 560,000 u/s 69 as confirmed by Ld CIT-A , is invalid and unlawful, as till end that crucial evidence which is jugular vein and focal point of Ld AO's case has remained completely aborted and never brought on records much less being confronted to assessee, as evident from orders passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A wherefrom it would be patent and manifest that so called invisible evidence which has kick started impugned proceedings is no where discussed, analyzed and examined. 4. That addition of Rs. 560,000 made by Ld AO as sustained by Ld ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cash of Rs. 5,60,000/-, total amounting to Rs. 5,85,000/-. In view of above information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee by way of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1), dated 28.11.2013 along with questionnaire. There was no compliance by the assessee. Thereafter, a show-cause notice for for completion of the ex-parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act was issued on 04.03.2014 and served upon the assessee. In response, the Authorized Representative of the assessee attended and filed submission before the Assessing Officer. Learned Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee made payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the Aerens Group on 20.03.2007 as advance payment to purchase property with the condition that the balance amount would be paid before the end of the Financial Year 2006-07 and if the assessee would not pay the balance amount within above time, then the advance of the Rs. 25,000/- would be forfeited and property would not be sold to the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that no property from Aerens Group is registered in the name of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in two documents found during the course of search action at the 'AEZ Group'. Those two documents are as under: (i) Excel file named "down payment booking details.xls printed from the hard disk found during search on 17/08/2011 from the corporate office of the AEZ group at 301/303, Bakshi house, Nehru Place, New Delhi (ii) Excel file named "down payment booking details.xls retrieved from the hard disk found and seized as Annexure A-27 from the corporate office of AEZ group 6. The Ld. CIT-(A) has mentioned that in both these 'Excel files' name of the assessee as purchaser, covered area, sale price, cheque amount and cash amount received by the seller are recorded. 7. The Ld. CIT-(A) in para-6.1.2 of the impugned order has mentioned that on the basis of the 'Excel sheet', the amount received from the assessee by way of cheque and cash was shown at Rs. 7,90,000/- and Rs. 31,85,850/- respectively aggregating to Rs. 39,35,850/- and the balance of Rs. 40,000 was again shown to have been received by cheque." 5. The addition has been deleted by the Tribunal observing as under: "14. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been pleased to hold that addition to assessee's income in respect of additional sales consideration received in sale of land merely on the basis of Email recovered during the course of search action at the premises of another person and there being no independent material available supporting such additions, was not justified. Besides, we also find substance in the contention of the Learned AR that assessment under sec. 153 A of the Act in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee and in absence of abatement of assessment on the date of search, cannot be made in the present case as per the above cited decisions including the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra). Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 153 A and authorities below were also not justified in making and sustaining the addition in question merely on the basis of a hard disc found during the course of search at the premises of Aerens Group without any corroborative evide....