TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return of income, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.3.2015. Thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s 148/143(3) vide order dated 14.03.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs. 62,09,830/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 22.09.2017 in appeal no. 21/2016-17 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred. 1. In confirming the addition of Rs. 56,27,160/- made by the Ld. AO in the total income of the assessee, whereas all the relevant documents were being duly been submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as to Ld. CIT(A). 2. That the appellant may be allowed to add, alter, delete, or amend any ground of appeal if considered necessary at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. That the appellant prays that the demand confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted." 4. Assessee has also raised the additional grounds which read as under: "Additional Grounds of appeal 1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out of the income generated from undisclosed sources amounting to Rs. 56,27,160/-. He accordingly made its addition u/s 69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us. 7. Before us, Ld .AR reiterated the submissions made before lower authorities and further submitted that the AO has merely relied on the unauthenticated hard disk found during a search at the premises of third party and that the AO has not brought out any evidence to corroborate the contents of the hard disk. He submitted that identical issue (addition based on the hard disk found at the premises of AEZ group) arose in the case Subhash Khattar and other cases. The Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Subhash Khattar (ITA No. 902/Del/2015) and the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been affirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He further submitted in the context of proceedings u/s 153A and 147 of the Act in the case of Arvind Nath Seth & Sons HUF (ITA No.1660/Del/2015), Deepak Gupta (ITA No.5464/Del/2018 order dated 28.01.2019 and other cases, identical ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ails.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 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 25/07/2017 in the case of Principal CIT, Central-2, New Delhi Vs. Subhash Khattar in ITA 60/2017. In the said case, the Tribunal in ITA No. 902/Del/2015 observed as under: "8. Considering the above submissions, we find that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has upheld the addition in question mainly on the basis of (i) the det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tified. 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 evidence in support. We thus hold that the assessee/appellant succeeds on both The above issues i.e. on validity of assumption of jurisdiction under sec. 153A and the addition in question. The grounds involving the above issues are accordingly allowed." 15. We find that the Tribunal, both on the validity of addition under section 153A of the A....