TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 6 grounds i.e. a to f. As per the written submissions filed on 08/04/2021 itself forming part of record, the assessee has not pressed ground 2 to 5, i.e. b to f, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. . Therefore, we have to decide only ground No. 1 i.e. "a" relating to the addition of Rs. 1,37,69,626/- u/s 69 of the Act, treating the same as 'income from other sources'. 4. The brief facts relating to this ground are that assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of aerated water i.e. different flavours. During the course of survey certain papers/documents found at the business premises of the assessee were impounded. A scrutiny of the impounded material revealed that the assessee had purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and filed written submissions, which are as under: "1. The authorities below have erred in arriving at conclusion that the land purchase was done by the appellant as per the impounded document i.e. the Registered Agreement for Sale without possession. (@ paper book pg 124-142) It is submitted that the records of the case reveal to the contrary, in that it is manifest from the impounded document which is a duly registered document that the deal has been done by Mis SMV Agencies Private Ltd and no involvement of the appellant can be found in it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t enquiry. The Ld. AO in the present case neither undertook any independent enquiry or any statement from the beneficiaries of the alleged deal regarding the alleged payment of cash or even any statement from Mis SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd to confirm that they were the actual purchasers of the land. Refer: a. Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. P. V. Kalyansundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259 (refer to judgment compendium page 3 para 6-7) 3. The entire addition is based on presumption and conjectures and the same is unsustainable in law. Refer: a. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT, Bihar and Orissa (1959) 371TR 288 (refer to judgment compendium page 162-163 para 25-27) b. Omar Salay Mohommed v. CIT, Madras (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27) " 8.1 Referring to the above submissions, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition may be deleted. 9. The ld. DR on the other hand besides relying on the orders of revenue authorities submitted that the initial payment for the land deal was made directly out of the bank account of the assessee and the papers were found from the premises of the assessee and, therefore, it is very clear that the land deal in question was made by the assessee and referred to the statements recorded & documents impounded mentioned in the AO's order. . He, therefore, prayed for the confirmation of the addition made by the authorities below. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dhadda and Ors. (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Rajasthan and Jaipur High Court in ITA No. 197/2012and others, vide judgment dated 31/07/2017, on which reliance placed by the ld. AR of the assessee, wherein the Hon'ble High Court after considering various judgments decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP of the revenue vide SLP No. 9432/2018, dated 28/03/2018. 10.3 In the above judgment, a land mark judgment has been referred by the High Court, which is as under: "3. Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [2017] 394 ITR 220. "22. In case of Sahara, in addition we have the adjudication by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The ....