TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and seized. In response to notice u/s 153A dated 17.01.2012, the assessee filed his return of income on 21.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 19,47,520/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that certain papers marked as Annexure A-II in party A-I which were seized relates to same property transaction which gives calculation of payments made for purchasing a house. The AO observed that as per this paper, a house was purchased in a colony developed by Jaypee group. On enquiry being made about the entries made in this paper, the assessee explained before the AO in a reply filed on 29.03.2013 stating that one person named Shri Rohit Gupta who had earlier booked one residential property in Jaypee Greens, Greater Noida wanted to sell the said property mentioned in the seized paper. All the notings, in the seized paper are as per purchase terms agreed by Shri Rohit Gupta. The broker informed to the assessee that Shri Rohit Gupta was not in a position to pay further instalments and hence, he wanted to transfer his allotment. As per the assessee's reply submitted before the AO, he contacted the concerned person of Jaypee Greens, Greater Noida to confirm whether th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of property as mentioned in the seized paper, the assessee further emphasized in his reply that perusal of all the documents conclusively proves that no payment over and above Rs. 2.65 crore has been made and hence, the notings mentioned in the alleged seized papers cannot in any way be related with the assessee. It was argued that Jaypee Greens are the well established, well reputed and one of the biggest builders and they do not charge any amount over and above the amount as agreed for any particular transaction. The assessee also replied that he does not know Shri Rohit Gupta and Reeva Khetrpal. The broker only informed that the said property was booked by Shri Rohit Gupta which he got confirmed from Jaypee Green's before getting the property allotted in his favour. 4.1. However, the AO was not satisfied with the reply given by the assessee. He noted that as per assessee's reply total purchase price for the said property as per the provisional allotment letter is Rs. 5.85 crore while on paper this was finalized at Rs. 4.92 crore and then at Rs. 5.65 crore. He noted that the assessee has said in his reply that the property has been allotted in favour of Pradeep Kumar Gupta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned on paper. After examining the above mentioned facts from the seized paper, the AO concluded that this is very clear that amount of Rs. 215 lakh mentioned as amount 'B' is unaccounted income of the assessee and treated the same as undisclosed. The AO accordingly made addition of Rs. 2.15 Crore to the total income of the assessee. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made elaborate arguments stating that the AO has made addition on the basis of presumption and surmises without appreciating that neither he purchased the property nor he made any payment. Further, the allotment letter was not in the name of the assessee or his wife. Although the seized papers were found from the residence of the assessee but it is not related to the assessee. The presumption drawn by the AO u/s 292C of the Act is not supported by any corroborative evidence. Further, the document found is not in the handwriting of the assessee. It was submitted that the transaction took place for a sum of Rs. 5.50 Crores and out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 1.65 Crores was made to Mr. Rohit Gupta which was already paid by him to the builder. Further, the price of the property is more than the amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erty is in the name of elder brother of assessee (Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and his wife Smt. Seema Gupta). This fact has also been told to the AO during the assessment proceeding. As far as the price of the property is concerned, i have found from the allotment letter issued by Jaypee Greens as well as the payment plan that total price of the property is Rs. 5.85 crore. This fact has also been stated by the assessee to the AO during the assessment proceeding. The price of Rs. 5.85 crore mentioned in allotment letter of Jaypee issued to Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Smt. Seema Gupta is more than the amount of Rs. 5.65 crore mentioned in the seized document. The AO has also not brought any evidence on the record to show thaTthe value or the price of the impugned property is more than the amount of Rs. 5.85 crore mentioned in the allotment letter issued by Jaypee Greens. The assessee(appellan.t) has very clearly shown by giving the details of cheques issued so far that total payment of Rs. 2,67,57,500/- is made as per the details given below:- Date Cheque No. Amount 1.10.2009 230832 issued from Syn Bank of Smt. Seema Gupta 1,65,00,000 31.93.2012 778618 issued from Syn Bank o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the AO showing that total price of the property or its value is asessed at Rs. 8 crore. In fact the AO has not even disputed the total price of the property or its value shown in the allotment letter submitted by the assessee(appellant). Therefore, his argument of making of unaccounted payment in cash by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 2.15 crore for purchasing this property has not been found to be convincing at all. His another argument of making of unaccounted investment by the assessee in the said property because he was involved in the deal irrespective of the fact that the property is in the name of his elder brother, has also not been found convincing. In this regard, I agree with the Id. AR as argued by him in the rejoinder that the argument of the AO that with regard to the property at Jaypee Greens, Greater Noida , the broker met Shri Y.K. Gupta and he does not know Shri P.K. Gupta, does not make any material difference as all the payments are made from the bank account of Shri P.K. Gupta and Smt. Seema Gupta and the property is also booked and allotted in the joint name of Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta & Smt. Seema Gupta and all the documents and evidences in this reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleing the addition without appreciating that seized documents contains noting which clearly shows that amount of Rs. 2.15 lakhs is the unaccounted money given in black. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) be set-aside and the order of the AO should be restored. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the learned CIT(A). Referring to the order of the AO as well as the learned CIT(A) and the various pages of the paper book, he submitted that the property is in the name of elder brother of the assessee namely Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and his wife Smt. Seema Gupta. The price of Rs. 5.85 crores mentioned in allotment letter of Jaypee Group issued to Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Smt. Seema Gupta is more than the amount o FRs. 5.65 crores mentioned in the seized document. He submitted that the AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that the value or the price of the impugned property is more than the amount of Rs. 5.85 crores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust vs CIT (C), Kanpur [2014] 43 taxmann.com 95 (Agra. Trib.) 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find on the basis of seized documents marked as Annexure -A-1, the AO made addition of Rs. 2.15 cores to the total income of the assessee on the ground that the amount mentioned as B-II, represents the unaccounted income of the assessee for which he made the addition. We find the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition so made. It is an undisputed fact that the property was purchased in the name of the elder brother of the assessee Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and his wife Smt. Seema Gupta. The payments have been made from their bank account and no amount has been paid by the assessee. The price of Rs. 5.85 Cores mentioned in allotment letter of Jaypee issued to Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Smt. Seema Gupta is more th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke any material difference at all, since, all the payments have been made from the bank account of Shri P.K. Gupta and Smt. Seema Gupta and the property is also booked and allotted in the joint name of Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Smt. Seema Gupta. 12. We further find, although the seized documents were found from the residence of the assessee but it is not related to the assessee and the transaction was relating to the purchase of the property by elder brother of the assessee. The presumption drawn by the AO u/s 292C of the Act is not supported by any corroborative evidence. Entries reflected in these papers were not represented by any evidence on record that the assessee has paid any cash as alleged by the AO. 13. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Delco India (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act on basis of loose papers found during the search in assessee's case indicating assessee's transaction with a company when assessee not only clearly denied having any dealing with said company but also produced all necessary details before the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiries and a letter from director of tha....