TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O'). Further, assessee's appeal in ITA 922/Ind/2019 is the penalty appeal u/s. 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2013-14 against the penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 22.07.2019. Also, assessee's appeal ITA 923/ Ind/ 2019 is the penalty appeal u/s. 271AAB(1)(c) for A.Y. 2014-15 against the penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 09.08.2019. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. On 06.08.2013, a survey u/s. 133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently, a search u/s. 132 was also carried on 29-31 January 2014 at the business place of assessee company and residential premises of Directors. Various books of accounts and documents were seized. 3. After the search and survey operation, notice u/s. 153A was issued for filing of return. Returns of income were thereafter filed by the assessee as under: A.Y. PB Date of filing return u/s. 139(1) Total Income Date of filing return u/s. 153A Total income in Return u/s. 153A Addl Income 2008-09 12-44 27.02.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure. 3. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition o Rs. 3,56,08,183/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB (10) of income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the Ld. CIT(A) gas erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,36,515/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules. IT(SS)A 86/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 1. On the fact the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,38,292/- made by the A.O. on account of investment not fully disclosed in books of accounts. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs Abeeson Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 191 CIT MP 263. 2. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the A.O. on accounts of unaccounted receipts. 3. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,00,000/- made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of unexplained investment. 4. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 51,000/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance u/s 40A (3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,81,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure. 6. On the fact and in the Circumstance of case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure. 7. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,96,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unaccounted payments to Rajeev Soni. 8. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the additional of Rs. 1,16,60,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure . 9. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,77,65,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure. 10. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances of the case the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,96,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unaccounted payments. 10. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure. 11. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure. 12. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,39,49,728/- made by the A.O. on the account of disallowance of deductible expenditure. 13. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unaccounted receipts. 14. On the fact and the Circumstance of the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,11,43,000/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rule. IT(SS)A 110/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 1. On the fact and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f registered value of Rs. 1,33,27,660/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not accepting the alternative proposal of the appellant that it may be held that the appellant got 5% or 7.50% excess money on the sale of 5% or 7.50% plots of Aakriti High Land. 5. The appellant carves leave, to add, to alter and/ or to modify the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. IT(SS)A 91/ Ind/ 2019 A.Y. 2014-15 1. The order passed u/s. 143(3) by lower authorities is illegal, invalid, and untenable in law. The same be kindly cancelled. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 87,97,113/- and enhancing the said addition to Rs. 28.00 crore by making the addition of Rs. 27,16,02,887/- simply on the basis of half hearted and retracted statement recorded in the midnight of one of the directors. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming/ making the addition of Rs. 28.00 crore without having any collaborative and supportive evidence for the said income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he transactions were made at a place where the seller/s did not have a bank account, thus, the case of assessee falls within the exception of Clause (g) (j) (k) of rule 6DD of the Rules. Therefore, on the facts, the case of assessee being within the purview of Rule 6DD (j) of the Rules, no addition under Section 40A(3) of the Act was justified. Thus, judiciously following the above cited case laws, I am of the considered opinion that the AO was not justified in disallowing payment made to sellers u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, when the case of appellant in covered under exception provided in Rule 6DD (j) as held in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh (supra). Thus the addition made by the AO u/s 40A(3) amounting to Rs. 75,00,000/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed." 10. Against this deletion, the revenue is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the Ld. CIT(DR) relied on the findings of the Ld. AO and submitted that it is uncontroverted fact that the payment for purchase of land was made in cash. Further, the assessee, being builder and developer, the purchase of land is a business expenditure, therefore section 40A(3) of the Act was clearly attrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that during the current A.Y., assessee made payment of Rs. 75,00,000 in cash for purchase of 3.95 acres of agricultural land from three persons in village Salaiya: a. Smt. Ayodhya Patidar b. Smt. Ramkunwar Patidar c. Smt. Krishna Patidar The reasons for payment in cash was also mentioned as they were unaware of assessee-company and also there was no branch of bank in village Salaiya at that time. He relied on Rule 6DD(g) for contending that since the payment was made at a place which was not served by any bank, therefore the payment was allowable. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that an affidavit in this regard was placed at PB 337-339 to contend that there was no banking facility in village Salaiya. He submitted that the affidavits were confronted to the ld Assessing Officer, who did not deny the same in the remand proceedings. 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the expenditure is duly recorded in the books of account. The land purchased was developed for making housing projects later on. In the affidavit filed by the sellers at PB 337-339, they have clearly stated that they were not much aware of the assessee comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and evidence in support of the same before both the lower authorities and the lower authorities have not brought any material on record by verifying the same that they are false, bogus or unreliable. Therefore, in the given circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is covered by the exceptions in the proviso below subsection (3A) to section 40A(3) and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made in the hands of the assessee." 17. We therefore respectfully following the judgment in the case of Gurdas Garg (supra) and Tirupati Construction (supra) hold that having regard to business expediency, the payment in cash for purchase of land through registered deed was allowable. Thus, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, the expenditure was allowable as Learned AO could not have questioned the allowability of expenditure without any incriminating document in the assessment u/s. 153A; the payment was covered under Rule 6DD(g); and that the payment was a genuine expenditure and was made under business expediency. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is therefore sustained on this issue. Thus Ground No.1 of Revenue's Appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed. 18.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akash S/o. Shri Bhairu Singh on 05-022016 on behalf of his father Shri Bhairu Singh. Shri Prakash admitted that his father had received Rs. 23,00,000/- in cash from the assessee as sale consideration for the above said transaction. He, therefore, disallowed Rs. 23,00,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. Assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition examing the facts in the light of judicial pronouncements. 22. Now, the revenue is in appeal against this order. Learned Department Representative submitted that there was clear-cut evidence in the form of statement to establish on-money payment. He further submitted that the extensive and elaborate enquiries have proved that the asseseee has made unaccounted cash payments for the purchase of lands to the sellers, over and above the registered sale consideration. The statements of sellers /farmers have been recorded on oath in which many of them have stated that they have utilized the cash receipts from the assessee for purchasing other lands and properties and invested in construction of houses, vehicles and marriages of family members etc. He therefore contended that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 42 (Ahd.); ix. Balram Jakhar 98 TTJ 924 (Asr.); x. Common Cause (SC), following V.C. Shukla (supra) 24. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders of the Ld. Lower authorities and the evidences on record. Through Ground no.2, Revenue has challenged the finding of Ld.CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs. 23,00,000/-for alleged On-Money made by the Ld.AO. We observe that the registries were found during the course of the search. But the transaction value in the the registry was same as the transaction value recorded in the books. Like in the present year, the transaction with Shri Bhairu Singh as per the registry at PB 420-429 is at Rs. 9,50,000; and the transaction in the books is recorded at PB 437 which is at same value i.e. Rs. 9,50,000. Thus, there was no infirmity in the transaction recorded in the books and the transaction as per the registry value. In other words, no incriminating material was found during the course of search to show on-money payment. It was subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings that the statement of the sellers were recorded. In the present case, ironically when the seller Shri Bhairu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....next common ground of appeal relates to deduction u/s. 80IB(10); whereby in Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2008-09; Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2009-10; Ground No. 10 of A.Y. 2011-12, the revenue has challenged the deletion of addition in respect of section 80IB(10) amounting to Rs. 1,60,73,981; Rs. 3,56,08,183; and Rs. 2,68,13,834 respectively. 27. The facts as made out from the assessment order are that during the course of assessment proceedings, Ld Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of the following two projects:- i. Flamingo, Aakriti Eco City, Bhopal ii. Aakriti High Rise, Aakriti Eco City, Bhopal. Ld. AO denied the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act making following observation in para 29.4 onwards pg. 125 of his order: "29.4 Contention of the assessee is not acceptable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The assessee has stated that it cannot be treated as a contractor. However, in view of the facts of the case mentioned above, it is clear that the assessee has first sold structure and thereafter acted as a contractor for construction work of the resi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.4.11 Nevertheless, the building permission as well as the completed certificate was granted for the entire project and not for any individual bungalow flat. Registration of plots/unfinished units/structure is not permitted by the sub-registrar when the permission is granted for the construction of row houses/flats. The Completion Certificate has been granted for the project as a whole and not for individual houses/ flats. The same stands testimony to the fact that the appellant has constructed all the houses as a single project and not as a contractor. It may also b seen that the developer/builder has handed over the colony as a whole to the Municipal Corporation and not individual houses at different points of time. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record even a single instance where the house had been later constructed by the customer himself or by a different contractor or is still lying unconstructed. Each and every house has been built by the appellant alone. This being the case it only means that the appellant is the developer and builder of the project as a whole and not a contractor for individual customer. The possession letters and the sale deeds have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble ITAT, Indore vide ITAT No. 472 & 473/Ind/2015 dated 08.01.2019. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,60,73,981/- is Deleted. The appeal on these grounds is Allowed." 29. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order and submitted that the assessee is merely a contractor. He relied on the judgment of Sky Builders and Developers vs ITO 1(1), Bhopal (2011) 14 taxmann.com 78 and submitted that since the registry was done only at structure level and a separate agreement for construction was done, the assessee acted merely a contractor. Further, he submitted that during the assessment measurement of two units located in the Flamingo Project was got done from the registerd valuer Shri Nilesh D. Mathrani. Scanned copy of the measurement report is available at pg. 123 of the Assessment Order. From the report it is evidently clear that the total built-up area of the constructed units has exceeded the ceiling of 1500 sq ft in case of both the units separately. Thus, the assessee has violated the mandatory statutory condition for eligibility to claim deduction under section 80IB(10) as the tot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loan facility from different financial institutions/ banks. The financial institutions/ bank insist for the execution of the sale deed before completion of the units to safeguard their interest. These agreements have been executed by the assessee before execution of sale deed and in the agreement for sale, the total cost of flat is mentioned and nowhere the bifurcation of the amount of plot and amount of finished work has been mentioned. We also found that builders are asking the buyers to pay the total amount of flat at different stages based on the progress of the project. it is evidenct from the agreements submitted before the Assessing Officer that entire cost of flat and other charges were demanded from the buyers within a period of two months which further indicate that the flats were already completed and the possession was handed over to the buyers immediately after receiving the entire amount. The contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessee is acting as a contractor is merely on the basis of execution of sale deed at a lower price than the agreed price. There is no merit in Assessing Officers contention in so far as the buyers having incurred any expenditure on c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act was allowed. The order has been placed in the assessee's paper book at PB 125-145. Further in A.Y. 2008-09, which is impugned before us, the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) and the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) was allowed by the Ld. AO (The Assessment order is placed at PB 45-46). Also, in A.Y. 2009-10, the claim was allowed in the assessment u/s. 143(3) by the Ld. AO. The Assessment order is placed at PB 69-70. In A.Y. 2010-11, the issue of developer and contractor travelled to ITAT. The claim was allowed by the ITAT, Indore Bench, Indore and the order is placed at PB 125-145. Thus, the issue as regards the deduction u/s. 80IB(10), so far as the assessee is concerned, has already been settled in various proceedings. The department in the proceedings u/s. 153A is trying the re-agitate this issue, which is not permissible. The relevant finding of the this Tribunal in ITA 472 & 473/ IND/ 2015, order dated 08.01.2019 squarely applicable on the instant issue is reproduced below: "5. We have heard rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Objection of the A.O. is that the assessee is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee, claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act cannot be denied in present proceedings u/s. 153A r/w. Section 143(3). We respectfully following our own order in ITA 472 & 473/ Ind/ 2015 allow the claim of the assessee. The order of the ld CIT(A) is hereby sustained and the deletion of addition for A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y. 2009-10, A.Y. 2011-12, amounting to Rs. 1,60,73,981; Rs. 3,56,08,183; and Rs. 2,68,13,834 respectively, is hereby confirmed. The appeals of the revenue on this ground is therefore dismissed. 35. Now we proceed to Ground No. 4 of the revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, relating to disallowance u/s. 14A to the tune of Rs. 1,29,271, and similar issue is raised in Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 200910; Ground No. 10 of A.Y. 2011-12; Ground No. 13 of A.Y. 2012-13; Ground No. 14 of A.Y. 2013-14; Ground No. 9 of A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 25,36,515; Rs. 1,19,22,476; Rs. 1,51,98,000; Rs. 2,11,43,000; and Rs. 2,09,10,000 respectively . For adjudication purpose we will take the facts for A.Y.2008-09 and our finding shall apply to the grounds raised on this common issue. 36. Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings u/s. 153A, held that the assessee company is engaged in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xmann.com 116 (Guj.); v. CIT vs Lakhani Marketing 49 taxmann.com 257 (P & H). vi. ACIT vs M. Baskaran 152 ITD 844 (ITAT Chennai) Ld. Counsel for the assessee, further submitted that there were sufficient interest free funds available with the assessee for making investment in shares and loans to sister concerns. He submitted that since sufficient interest free funds are available, interest free funds were given to sister concern and hence no disallowance u/s. 14A could be done. 40. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore submitted that the order of Ld CIT(A) be confirmed. 41. We have considered the rival submissions, and the order of the ld Lower authorities, facts of the case and various case laws pointed during the course of the proceedings. Common issue relating to deletion of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has been raised by the Revenue for various assessment years as stated above. We observe that Learned CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance in the light of the facts of the instant case placing reliance on decisions squarely applicable on the instant issue observing as follows:- "4.5.2 I have considered the facts of the case, evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital, profit reserves, surplus and current account deposit were higher than the investment in tax-free securities, it would have to be presumed that investment made by the Assessee would be out of the interest-free funds available with assessee and no disallowance was warranted u/s 14A." Besides this reliance could also be placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT V/s India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. (2016) 66 taxman.com 356 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that where the assessee is having sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investments, no portion of the interest expenditure can be disallowed u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. Similar ratio have been propounded in the decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT V/s Torrent Power Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 474 (Guj.) and CIT V/s Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd. (2014) 221 Taxman 109 (Guj.) and Jurisdictional High Court in the case of JCIT V/s Beekay Engineering Corporation 38 DTR 289 (Chhattisgarh). Applying the ratio laid down by above-cited case law to the facts of this case, I reach to the conclusion that the assessee having more tax-free funds than the amount of investmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Cheminvest Limited V/s. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del.) h. Redington India Ltd. V/s Addl. CIT (2016) 97 CCH 219 (Mad.) i. PCIT V/s. IL & FS Energy Developments Co. Ltd. (2017) 84 taxman.com 186(Del.) 4.5.5 Reference may be made to the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. (supra) and also to the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V/s Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. (supra.). In the above decisions, it has been held that where assessee did not make any claim for exemption of income, provision of section 14A could have no application. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has neither claimed any exempt income nor has claimed deduction for any expenditure in relation to exempt income nor has claimed deduction for any expenditure in relation to exempt income. The issue is also covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) supporting the same ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. In a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington India ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(P&H) restricting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income, it was held that- "we rate from the facts in the state Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable...Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct conclusion by affirming the view of the ITAT." Reliance in support is also placed upon the following decisions:- * Joint Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.) * PCIT V/s. Empire package (P.) Ltd. (2016) 286 CTR 457 (P&H) 4.5.7 Since this is unequivocally clear that appellant did not claim any exempt income during the assessment year, so the amount of disallowance has to be restricted to zero i.e. in the year no disallowance should have been made. I find considerable force in the arguments of the Ld. AR in this regard. Respectfully following the binding precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the disallowance made to the tune of Rs. 1,29,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer to sustain the disallowance to the extent of dividend income earned during the year or 0.5% of average investment in equity shares at the end of each assessment year in question before us, whichever is less. Respectfully following the various judgments, we partly confirm the order of ld CIT(A) as per terms indiciated above. Thus Ground No. 4 for A.Y. 2008-09, Ground No. 3 of A.Y. 2009-10 , Ground No. 10 of A.Y. 2011-12), Ground No. 13 of A.Y. 2012-13 , Ground No. 14 of A.Y. 2013-14 and Ground No. 9 of A.Y. 2014-15) are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove. 46. Now we take up common Ground relating to addition made on the basis of loose paper LPS A-14 page no. 38, which is Ground No. 1 of Department's appeal in A.Y. 2009-10 (Rs. 4,96,677/-), Ground No. 6 for A.Y. 2011-12 (Rs. 5,96,000/-), Ground No. 7 for A.Y. 2012-13 (Rs. 5,96,000/-), Ground No. 9 for A.Y. 2013-14 (Rs. 5,96,000/-) and Ground No. 6 for A.Y. 2014-15 (Rs. 5,96,000/-). 47. The facts in brief are that during the course of search, a loose paper LPS A-14, page no. 38 was found and seized. This was a handwritten document, whereby details of salary, Vehicle driver etc were written in respect of Shri S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s any exchange of money by CASH/Kind, AO has no locus to assume that appellant has paid Rs. 4,96,677/-. It is settled law that AO cannot make any addition merely on basis of suspicion, however strong it may be. The AO is not justified in presuming certain facts without having anything to corroborate. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. V/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.6 In view of the above discussion, material evidences on record and case laws cited, firstly, the AO ought to have examined other directors whose names are also written on the impugned loose paper in order to find genuineness and trueness of the loose paper under consideration. Secondly, the loose paper or rather say it as dumb document should be a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res etc could not be sustained in the absence of any corroborative evidence supporting it. [Similarly in present case, neither either parties have admitted payment/receipt of 'on money' nor any corroborative evidence was seized to support the findings of the AO]. V. S K Gupta Vs. DCIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Del Trib) 532 Held that "that additions made on the basis of torn papers and loose sheets cannot be sustained as same do not indicate that any transaction ever took place and does not contain any information in relation to the nature and party to the transaction in question." 52. We therefore respectfully following the decisions referred above and in view of the fact that the alleged document is dumb in nature and no nexus is established by the ld AO find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.CIT(A) which needs to be confirmed. Accordingly Ground No. 1 of Department's appeal in A.Y. 2009-10 (Rs. 4,96,677/-), Ground No. 6 for A.Y. 2011-12 (Rs. 5,96,000/-), Ground No. 7 for A.Y. 2012-13 (Rs. 5,96,000/-), Ground No. 9 for A.Y. 2013-14 (Rs. 5,96,000/-) and Ground No. 6 for A.Y. 2014-15 (Rs. 5,96,000/-) are dismissed. 53. Now we take up Ground No. 2 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Due consideration is given to the submission filed by the appellant inter alia the evidences furnished. Let me first summaries the basis on which additions have been made by the AO. The AO has safely relied upon statements recorded either of seller or of any third party i.e. Shri Thakur Prasad or has made addition made by the AO are purely hypothetical and without any independent corroborative evidence. The AO also did not provide opportunity of cross examination to the appellant. The AO has consistently harped on the statements of sellers/third party. 4.3.6 This is admitted fact that statements of 21 sellers were recorded. This is also an admitted fact these statements were recorded behind the back of appellant. No opportunity of cross-examination was allowed to the assessee though specifically asked for by the assessee. It has been held by hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of DCIT V/s Mahendra Ambala Patel & CIT V/s Kantilalbhai Ravidas patel that statement has no evidentiary value if opportunity of cross-examination is not allowed. Besides this, apparently the AO did not independently verified the facts about the genuineness of the said party as well as the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1994) 210 ITR 103 (Cal.)(HC) * Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunrise Tooling System (P) Ltd. [2014] 47 TAXMANN 20 (Delhi Court)- "Where Assessing Officer made addition to assessee's income on basis of statement recorded by director of company in course of survey to effect that said amount represented non-existent transaction, since statement so made did not have any evidentiary value and, moreover, Assessing Officer had not even rejected assessee's books of account while treating transaction in question to be bogus, impugned addition deserved to be deleted" * Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax-I vs. Chartered Speed Pvt. Ltd. and also Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Indraji Singh Suri (2013) 33 TAXMANN 281 (Guj.) - "Where additions were made on basis of statements of person who were not allowed to be cross examined by assessee, additions were not sustainable." * Radha Madhav Ind. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur (2015) 54 TAXMANN 404 (New Delhi - CESTAT)-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce found in course of search that the appellant had paid more money than what was stated in the purchase document. In the case of the appellant the exercise carried out by the assessing officer is without the authority of law and therefore the same cannot be a basis for addition. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover v. Appropriate Authority, 223 ITR 572. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below: "However, as regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the market rate fixed for the area in question at the relevant time in the land rates fixed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur, as well as by the stamp authority for the purposes of levy of stamp duty on registration of the documents was Rs. 1,500 per sq. meter, i.e., Rs. 145 per sq. ft. and therefore, the rate of Rs. 225 per sq. ft. agreed to between the parties for purchase of the suit land was more than the market rate for such land, it may be seen that the rates of properties maintained by the above authority or officers for the purposes of checking evasion to stamp duty upon transfer deeds are not pursuant to the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supra), the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs. 67,51,000/-. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 67,51,000/-is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed." 57. Against this order of Ld. CIT(A), the department is in appeal. 58. Ld. Counsel for the revenue has relied on the order of the Ld. AO. He contended that in the case of Shri Laxmi Narayan, he stated in his statement that "on-money" was paid of Rs. 6,48,000. In respect of purchase from Smt. Ayodhya Patidar, Krishna Patidar and other, he contended that statement of Thakur Prasad Patidar, who was husband of Smt. Krishna Patidar was recorded. He also confirmed that the land was purchased for Rs. 85 lakhs and onmoney was paid. In respect of Shri Arjun Patidar, he contended that the purchase consideration was below stamp value, although Arjun Patidar denied on-money. Lastly, in respect of purchase of land from Shri Shyam Narayan, Ld. CIT(DR) stated that he stated to have received on-money to the tune of Rs. 21,71,000. He therefore contended that addition made by Ld. AO may kindly be restored. 59. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on his submissions made in respect to Grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s alleged by the ld AO were there, why the same were not brought on record; why a copy of same was not provided to assessee; or why the same were not even brought on record in the Department's paper book before us. We have gone through the statement of Shri Laxmi Narayan also. It seems that he gave the statement about on-money in confusion, as another land was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 6,48,000/-, the same amount which is alleged to have been paid as on-money. Further, in respect of Smt. Ayodhya Patidar, Smt. Krishna Patidar and other, it is unknown as to why statement of sellers were not recorded, but a statement of third person, who was not a party to the trasaction was recorded. Infact Thakur Prasad Patidar made different statements on different occasions. In his first statement, at PB 362 in question 6 he stated that he was not aware of the consideration. In his second statement, he stated at PB 367 question 11 that the consideration was Rs. 67 lakhs, thus there was no on-money. In his third statement, he stated that the consideration was Rs. 85 lakhs and thus there was on-money of Rs. 17 lakhs. Since his statements changed now and then hence his tesdtimony did not i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....) As per DVO (Rs.) Addition (Rs.) 2009-10 2010-11 87,00,000 1,10,08,211 23,08,211 2010-11 2011-12 1,00,01,000 1,36,03,753 36,02.753 2011-12 2012-13 1,05,00,000 1,47,60,305 42,60,305 2012-13 2013-14 1,07,00,000 1,57,00,578 50,00,578 2013-14 2014-15 1,51,00,000 2,21,56,890 70,56,890 TOTAL 5,50,01,000 7,72,29,737 2,22,28,737 Aakriti Natures Cure Center , vill. Phanda , Bhopal F.Yr. A.Yr. As per Assesse (Rs.) As per DVO (Rs.) Addition (Rs.) 2010-11 2011-12 46,27,000 53,62,539 7,35,539 2011-12 2012-13 2,64,16,000 3,04,23,551 40,07,551 2012-13 2013-14 2,39,31,000 2,67,84,611 28,53,611 2013-14 2014-15 2,87,13,000 3,11,32,155 24,18,155 TOTAL 8,36,87,000 9,37,02,856 1,00,14,856 Sprout (School Building), E-8, Extention, Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal F.Yr. A.Yr. Declared by assessee Estimated by DVO PB 751-760 Addition by AO (3) - (4) 2013-14 2014-15 1,05,01,000 3,64,13,000 2,59,12,000 64. Against the order of the ld AO, an appeal was filed before the ld CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is bound of have amount of estimation, guess work & opinion involved and estimate cannot be 'exact'. After all it is an estimate done by an expert it is a popular maxim 'to err is human'. It is evident from the very fact that, appellant has raised various discrepancies in the DVO's report. However, AO did not find it appropriate to invite counter comments of DVO on objections raised by the assessee. Although, it is a settled legal position that valuation report submitted by DVO is not binding upon AO, but in the present case AO has adopted and used the valuation report as if it is binding on him. Appellant has pointed out several glaring mistakes and omissions in valuation report, on which AO has maintained a conspicuous silence which is unbecoming of a quasijudicial authority. d. It is important to note that DVO has prepared his report based on DPAR- 2007 after applying cost index on above DPAR as base 100. Interestingly, DVO has applies same rate for cost of construction of the project even though the investment is spread over many years. As per appellant, DVO should have adopted MPPWD rates after making certain adjustment for the construction done by the assessee in di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may also be germane to notice the expression used by legislature i.e. "estimate". Thus, resort can be made to the said provision by the AO for the purpose of "estimating" the value of any investment, bullion, jewellery or any valuable article etc. However, this is settled legal position that addition cannot be made solely on the basis of valuation report which is only give an estimate as held by various High Court, discussed earlier. g. It is apparent from record that assessing officer has not brought any material on record to establish that the assessee had made any unaccounted investment in construction of the building in question and that books of accounts do not reflect the correct cost of construction. It is evident that only reason for making the addition u/s 69B of the Act is that there is a difference in the cost of construction as estimated by the valuation officer and as shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. h. The AO has mentioned in the assessment order that construction account was not produced before him for verification which is contrary to his statement in Para 2 of the assessment order wherein he has mentioned that books of accounts wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he DVO for estimating the value of investment and the amendment was made effective with retrospective effect from 15.11.72. The proviso to the section provided that the amended section will not apply to assessment which has become final and conclusive on or before 30.09.2004. In these circumstances the court held that as the appeal is pending before it, the assessment has not become final and conclusive and hence the amended section 142A of the act will be applicable as it has been amended w.e.f. 15.11.72 and accordingly the reference made to the DVO was a valid reference. Thus the issue for decision before the Court in that case was whether amended provisions of section 142A made in 2004 can be made applicable to cases in which assessments are already completed. Thus it would be seen that the said judgment has no applicability to the case of the assessee. b. Shakti Tourist Home v CIT 308 ITR 228 (kerala): the citation mentioned in the assessment order is not correct. The correct citation is 308 ITR 0028 In this case the issue before the High Court was whether it can make changes in the valuation made and whether the addition towards unexplained investment made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this ground is Allowed." Similar findings were given for subsequent assessment years. 65. Against this order of the Ld. CIT(A), the department is in appeal. The Ld. CIT(DR) during the course of hearing, submitted that during the search and post search inquiries, valuation report was obtained from the Valuation Officer. The report of the Valuation Officer clearly demonstrates that the cost of construction shown by the assessee was below the actual expenses incurred in construction of the properties. The difference in the value shall therefore be treated as undisclosed expenditure and shall be added. 66. On the contrary, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that:- "Submissions: WHY REFERENCE NOT JUSTIFIED? 1. Reference to DVO in 153A proceedings not tenable; moreover as no incriminating document showing unaccounted investment. Kabul Chawla (supra) and others CIT vs Khushal Chand Nirmal Kumar 263 ITR 77 (M.P.) PB 766-769 CIT vs Manoj Jain 287 ITR 285 (Del.) PB 770-771 CIT vs Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595 (Del.) PB 772-774 2. In the absence of any material found during the course of search, no ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ld CIT(A) gave 5% deduction for self-supervision. 6. Lower deduction for self-procurement of materials. 7. DPAR Rates 2007 vs MP PWD rates. CIT vs Raj kumar 182 ITR 436 (All.) PB 780 CIT vs Smt. Prem Kumari Murdia (Raj.) PB 782 8. Chart (PB 761-763) explaines the details of rate and amount of extra items adopted by DVO, which are not covered in DPAR 2007. 9. In case of incomplete construction, DVO has taken very high value. 10. Estimational 15% difference is reasonable. The valuation by department itself at two different points yielded wide differences. C.B. Gautham 199 ITR 530 (SC) 11. Omprakash Bagaria (HUF) 287 ITR 523 and other cases, relied by ld AO. Discussed and distinguished by ld CIT(A) pg. 79 para 4.2.10." 67. We have considered the facts of the case, rival contentions, report of the Valuation officers, the case laws relied on and the orders of the Ld. Lower authorities. Ld.CIT(A)'s finding of deleting the addition made by the Ld AO on account of alleged excess investment in construction arrived at on the basis of valuation report of DVO for AY 20011-12 to AY 2014-15 has been challenged by the Revenue.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd also 25% deduction considering the difference in the rate as per the Delhi Plinth Area Rate (DPAR) and the rate existing in M.P. PWD and the self-procurement of materials by the builder himself. Ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgment of CIT vs Raj kumar 182 ITR 436 (All.) and CIT vs Smt. Prem Kumari Murdia (Raj.). Considering overall facts, Ld. CIT(A) therefore was justified in reducing the Valuation of the DVO by 30%. After giving the deduction of 30% as above, the valuation as per the ld CIT(A) came as under: F.Yr. A.Yr. Declared by assessee Estimated by DVO PB 1298-1309 Addition by AO (3) - (4) Estimation by DVO after deduction for self-supervision and CPWD vs PWD rates (4) - 30% Net addition (3) - (6) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 2010-11 2011-12 1,46,28,000 1,89,66,292 43,38,292 1,32,76,404 - 2011-12 2012-13 31,59,16,000 35,77,90,359 4,18,74,359 25,04,53,251 - 2012-13 2013-14 50,70,31,000 56,87,92,538 6,17,61,538 39,81,54,777 - 2013-14 2014-15 71,16,14,000 82,94,54,913 11,78,40,913 58,06,18,439 - 69. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We therefore dismiss this ground of department's appeal. 74. Now we take up Ground No. 3 of Department's Appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 relating to unexplained investment of Rs. 21,00,000 as per LPS 3 pg. 23 to 39. 75. The facts relating to this Ground of appeal are that during the course of search action at the residence of Shri Hemant Kumar Soni, who was the CMD of the assessee company, a Joint Development Agreement between M/s. Aashirwad Sky Heights Pvt Ltd. and M/s. AG8 Ventures Ltd for development of a land at Indore was found and seized. As per this document payment of Rs. 5,92,00,000 was to be made including inter-alia a payment of Rs. 21,00,000 which was in cash. The alleged payment was stated to have been made on 11.08.2010. Rest of the payments were stated to be by cheques as per this agreement. Ld. AO noted that this cash payment of Rs. 21,00,000 was not recorded in the books. He therefore added this sum of Rs. 21,00,000. 76. Against this addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition at page 96 to 98 holding as under: "4.4.2 I have consideration the facts of the case, evidence on record and findings of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). Also, once the assessee has discharged its onus of proving that the parties under consideration are genuine, now the ball lies in the court of AO to prove that the claim of appellant is false and incorrect. Further, Shri Mahendra Singh Namdeo has never stated that a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- was received in cash from appellant against the security deposit. Thus, in view of the above, the AO was not justified in making addition without bringing any clinching evidence on record which could prove any such exchange of cash took place. Thus, keeping in view the various case laws cited above, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 21,00,000/- is Deleted being made on assumption and presumption basis. Therefore appeal on this ground is Allowed." 77. Against this order of Ld. CIT(A), the department is in appeal. Ld. Counsel for the revenue contended that during search, the Joint Development Agreement was found, which clearly stated that a payment of Rs. 21,00,000 was made in cash. The addition is therefore justified. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand submitted that no cash payment of Rs. 21,00,000 was made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loose paper some details were mentioned showing cheque payments for investment in MBSM which was computer generated. On the lower part of the loose sheet, a hand written jotting was mentioned whereby it was mentioned as under: Total Sale Consideration 575.62 Less Paid till 20.03.11 350 Cash 310 Cheque due 40 Balance due in cheque 171 Balance must have been paid in 'B' (Not accounted) Pls confirm? 54.620 81. On the basis of this handwritten noting, it was contended by the Ld. AO in his order that on-money was paid at Rs. 310 lakhs in the F.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 54.62 lakhs in the F.Y. 2011-12. Ld. AO further referred to an unsigned MOU found between Shri Bharat Bhushan Patel and assessee-company. As per this unsigned document, it was mentioned that both the parties would destroy certain documents and in case the document is found from either of the parties, any losses to the party because of such discovery would be the responsibility of the party from whose possession such documents were found. Ld AO therefore concluded that unexplained investment were made by assessee company in acquisition of shares of M/s. Ma Bhagwati Sugar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Patel regarding alleged cash payment. During search, Shri Hemant Kumar Soni was asked about the alleged document and he stated that no cash payment was made. So far as the MOU was concerned, it was contended that neither the parties, nor the witness have signed it. The document had no value, as it was a mere type written document. Who made it and for what purposes it was made is unknown. It was found from the residence of one employee Shri Yashovardhan Jain. The MOU stated only the proposed payments through post dated cheques. It does not say that any excess amount was paid by the assessee company. It was further contended that MSBM was in losses, as stated before the search party and later during assessment. The construction of building was also going on. Thus, there was no reason for making any excessive payment. It was contended lastly, that no excessive payment was made, and the amount recorded in the books was already higher than the amount mentioned in the loose sheet. Thus, the allegation of unexplained expenditure was baseless. 85. We have considered the facts of the case, the rival submissions, evidence on record and the arguments of both the parties. After carefully e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ument which contain some rough nothings/jottings in the bottom of the page. Appellant during appellate proceedings submitted that no over and above consideration was paid in addition to what is disclosed in books of account. The impuged loose paper found in possession is an undated, unsigned and only represents rough working/jottings/scribbling. After considering the entire factual matrix and evidence/material on record inter alia written submissions filed. I reach to conclusion that impunged addition was made on the basis of assumption and presumption which neither sustainable on facts nor in law. The AO has reached to conclusion that appellant has made unexplained investment of Rs. 3,10,00,000/- in purchase of shares of M/s Maa Bhagwati Sugar Mills Ltd. Appellant during appellate proceedings has strongly contented that appellant never paid any amount over and above that is mentioned in audited books of account. This document has been scanned on page 61 of assessment order. On a plain and cursory look would make it amply clear that this paper is relating to "some working on investment in shares of M/s Maa Bhagwati Sugar Mills Ltd". The AO has alleged that sum of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proof is on the person who makes any allegation and not on the person who has to defend. As per legal maxim "affairmanti non neganti incumbit probation" means burden of proof lies upon him who affirm and not upon him who denies. Similarly as per doctrine of common law "incumbit probation qui digit non qui negat" i.e. burden lies upon one who alleges and not upon one who deny the existence of the fact. The loose paper i.e. page 75 of LPD-A-28 is rough working/jotting. The AO has filed to discharge his onus of proof especially when addition has been made under "deeming fiction". In view of this lacune on the part of AO, impunged addition is legally not sustainable. As held in the case of CIT v/s KP Varghese 131 ITR 574 (SC) by Hob'ble Apex Court in absence of evidence that actually assessee paid more amount than declared in regarded deed, no addition can be made. In the case of Bansal Strips (P) Ltd. & Ors Vs. ACIT (2006) 99 ITD 177 (Del) it has been held that:- "If an income not admitted by assessee is to be assessee in the hands of the assessee. The burden to establish the such income is chargeable to tax is on the AO. In the absence of adequate material as to nature and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of assessee company. Further Ground No. 6 for A.Y. 2012-13 relate to alleged commission payment in respect to the same loose paper. Since all these issues are interconnected these grounds are adjudicated together. 88. The facts relating to these grounds of appeal are that during the course of search and seizure action, at the residential premises of Shri Yashovardhan Jain, General Manager (Finance) of the assessee company, copy of agreement dated 09/02/2012 was found marked as LPS 1/3 page no. 99 to 103. The said agreement was duly signed and on stamp paper for assignment of rights to purchase 13.314 hectares (32.89 acres) of land at Village Phanda between M/s. Citi Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Kunal Agrawal (Assigner/ First Party) and M/s. AG8 Ventures Ltd. (Assignee/ Second party). Ld. AO stated that as per Annexure A of the agreement, the total consideration for the land between the first party and the Bhumi Swamis was Rs. 11,97,08,000 out of which Rs. 2.30 crores had already been paid by the first party. These land were sold by the assigner under this agreement to assessee company for Rs. 51.51 lakhs per acre totalling to Rs. 16,94,16,000. Thus, as per this agreement,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....absence of any corroborative evidence to prove that there was any exchange of money by CASH, AO has no locus to assume that appellant has paid sum of Rs. 4,97,00,000/- to M/s Citi Infraventures P.Ltd. It is settled law that AO cannot make any addition merely on basis of suspicion, however strong it may be. The AO is not justified in presuming certain facts without having anything to corroborative. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex Court In the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.610 In view of the above discussion, material evidences on record and case laws cited, firstly, the AO ought to have provided opportunity of cross examination of Shri Yashovardhan Jain. Secondly, the AO should have examined Shri Pradeep Agar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant to note that Shri Rajeev Soni was appointed director of M/s Aakriti Dwelling Pvt. Ltd. on 28.06.2008 and not on 26.06.2008 as alleged by the AO. Further, the loose paper i.e. page no 38 of LPS-A-14 is rough working/jotting. The AO has filed to discharge his onus of proof especially when addition has been made under "deeming fiction". In view of this lacune on the part of AO, impunged addition is legally not sustainable. As held in the case of CIT v/s KP Varghese 131 ITR 574 (SC) by Hob'ble Apex Court in absence of evidence that actually assessee paid more amount than declared in regarded deed, no addition can be made. In the case of Bansal Strips (P) Ltd. & Ors Vs. ACIT (2006) 99 ITD 177 (Del) it has been held that:- "If an income not admitted by assessee is to be assessee in the hands of the assessee. The burden to establish the such income is chargeable to tax is on the AO. In the absence of adequate material as to nature and ownership of the transactions, undisclosed income cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee merely by arithmetically totally various figures jotted down on loosed documents". 4.7.5 This is an undisputed fact that neither an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to Rs. 4,00,00,000/- is Deleted. Therefore appeal on this ground is Allowed." 91. Against these finding, the revenue is in appeal. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that during the course of search at the residential premises of Shri Yashovardhan Jain, General Manager (Finance) of the assessee-company a document on stamp paper was found, which was duly signed by the parties. As per Annexure A of the document, it was clear that the assessee company purchased 32.89 acres of land @ 51.51 lac/ acre from M/s. Citi Infra ventures Ltd. The amount payable to the farmers was Rs. 11,97,08,000 and therefore excess amount of Rs. 4,97,00,000 was paid in excess by the assessee-company. Further, he referred to LPS 1/2 page no. 55, 56, 65, and 67 and further BS1/2 page no. 7 and contended that the documents further gave the details of payments made to Shri Munna Agrawal alias Shri Pradeep Agrawal, and Shri KBL Agrawal. He therefore submitted that sufficient evidences were found during the course of search to establish the payment of Rs. 4.97 crores as on-money to M/s. Citi Infraventures Pvt Ltd. In respect of commission payment , he further referred to Annexure A of the agreement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ai and Smt -Sugan Bai d/o Gurubaksh 359 & 350/2 6.52 acres 16.06.2012 (PB 924-948) 1,66,72,000 1.On 04.02.2016 & 08.02.2016 - No cash received. (PB 949-966) 2.Affidavit from Bhagwan Singh and Soram Bai (PB.967-968) that no cash received from sale of land. Shri Suresh s/o Shri Ram Singh 362/21 3 acres 01.11.2012 (PB 1004-1024) 1,20,00,000 1. On 05.02.2016 that no cash received. (PB 1025-1029) 2. Affidavit - PB 1030, No cash received. Shri Rajmal s/o Shri Shambhulal 362/1/2/ & 375 6 acres 24.05.2012 PB 898-919) 1,90,00,000 No recorded. Shri Govind Singh s/o Shri Shambhulal 362/1/1 4.38 acres 13.09.2012 (PB 973-993) 1,75,20,000 1.On 28.04.2014 no cash received.. On 26.02.2016 stated that cash of Rs. 5 lac received. (PB 999) 2. Affidavit on 11.05.2018 that no cash was received. (PB 994) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that none of the sellers accepted to have received any amount in cash. In respect of two sellers, who had accepted to have received cash, they subsequently filed affidavit stating that no such cash was received. Further, in respect of the allegation regarding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the farmers. The basis of the Ld. AO in the present case remains the agreement which is on stamp paper and duly signed by the parties. However, in our humble opinion, this agreement was never executed. All the parties denied the transaction as per the agreement. The sale deeds and other evidences prove the contrary. Had the parties intended to execute this agreement, it would have been registered. So far as the evidence regarding the payment to KBL Agrawal is concerned, the assessee accepted payment to KBL Agrawal, but in respect of purchase of another land. Further, the department is contending that payment to Munna Agrawal is payment to Pradeep Agrawal. No evidence has been produce to establish that Munna Agrawal is the alias name of Pradeep Agrawal. Infact this fact was denied by Pradeep Agrawal in his statement. In respect of on-money received by the farmers, the farmers have already denied to have receive onmoney. In respect of Shri Deep Singh, his statement was recorded on multiple occasions. On 05.02.2016, he stated that he received on money of Rs. 10 lakhs. Further, on 08.02.2016 and 12.02.2016 he stated that no cash was received. Later, in his statement on 26.02.2016, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earch inquiries, statement u/s. 131 was recorded of both Shri Narayan Singh and Shri Jairam Singh in May 2014. In their statement, they stated that they have received Rs. 15 lakhs each over and above the recorded consideration. Thus total amount of Rs. 30 lakhs was held by the Ld. AO to be on-money payment by the assessee. 98. Against this addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 158 para 4.8.5 onwards of his order deleted the addition as under: "4.8.5 Due consideration is given to the submission filed by the appellant inter alia the evidence furnished. Let me first summarise the basis on which additions have been made by the Assessing Officer. The AO has solely relied upon statement recorded of sellers Shri Narayn Singh and Shri Jai Ram Singh. The addition made by the AO are purely hypothetical and without any independent corroborative evidence. The AO has consistently harped on the statements of sellers. This is an admitted fact that statements of 21 were recorded. This is also an admitted fact these statements were recorded behind the back of appellant. No opportunity of cross-examination was al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Basudev Garg Vs. Commissioner of Customs. * Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Del) * Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT Vs. Heminder Kumar in ITA No. 4210-4213/Del/2013 Date of order 29.08.2014. * Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax-I, Jaipur Vs. A.L. Lalpuria Construaction (P) Ltd. * Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1994) 210 ITR 103 (Cal.)(HC) * Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Surise Tooling System (P) Ltd. [2014] 47 TAXMANN 20 (Delhi High Court)- "Where Assessing officer made addition to assessee's income on basis of statement recorded by director company in course of survey to effect that said amount represented non-existent transaction, since statement so made did not have any evidentiary value and, moreover, Assessing Officer had not even rejected assessee's books of account while treating transaction in question to be bogus, impugned addition deserved to be deleted" * Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it were to be assumed that the price of the land was different than the one recited in the sale deed unless it is established on record by the department, that as a matter of fact the consideration as alleged by the department did pass to the seller from the purchase it cannot be said that the department had any right to make an addition. If the case of the appellant stands in a much better footing in as much as there is no iota evidence found in course of search that the appellant had paid more money than what was stated in the purchase document. In the case of the appellant the exercise carried out by the assessing officer is without the authority of law and therefore the same cannot be a basis for addition. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover v. Appropriate Authority, 223 ITR 572. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below: "However, as regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the market rate fixed for the area in question at the relevant time in the land rates fixed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur, as well as by the stamp authority for the purposes of levy of stam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the revenue, during the course of hearing, submitted that the Ld. AO was justified in making the addition. He referred to the statements of Shri Narayan Singh and Shri Jairam Singh and contended that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set-aside and the addition made by the Ld. AO may be restored. 100. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that assessee had purchased the land for Rs. 6,33,18,000 from Shri Narayan Singh and Shri Jairam Singh. The purchase was duly recorded in the books of the assessee. All the payments were made by cheque. No evidence was found during the search showing any on-money. In the post search inquiries, the seller, Shri Narayan Singh and Shri Jairam Singh, for reasons best known to them stated that on money was paid Rs. 30,00,000. This statement was not corroborated by bringing any material on record. Further, Ld. AO did not grant opportunity of cross-examination of these persons. He therefore contended that the mere statement of third persons, therefore, cannot be relied on for making the addition. 101. We have considered the rival submissions, the order of the Ld. Lower authorities and the evidences on record. We find that Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and he stated that as per the Inspector's report, no such party was found at the address of the aforesaid party. The neighbours informed that, premises was on rent and it was informed that a family resides at the premises. Also, Ld. AO referred to the statement of Shri Verghese Joseph, owner of the premises, to contend that the same was not given on rent to M/s. Lake City Suppliers Pvt Ltd. In respect of M/s. Maa Mahima Traders, Bhopal, Ld. AO referred to Inspectors report and contended that no such party resided at the given address. Instead the house was residential house and it was locked everytime Inspector visited. As enquired from the neighbours, some students resided there on rent, and they used to come during late evening and leave the premises early in the morning. Lastly, in respect of M/s. S.K. Contrator, Bhopal, Ld AO again referred to Inspector's report and stated that no such party resided at the address. The premises was occupied by one family for last 7-8 years. The statement of owner of the premises Smt. Malti Gaur was also recorded, and denied to have known M/s. S.K. Contractors. Ld. AO therefore made the addition treating the expenditure as bogus. 105. Agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d before AO, the purchase could not be treated as bogus. 4.9.7 Nevertheless, the AO has grossly erred in making addition simply of the basis of guess work, assumption and presumption. It is well settled that no disallowance can be made as a leap in the dark. The AO is not entitled to make a guess without evidence. The assessment of any particular year cannot be based on mere suspicion or bare guess, but on a legitimate material from which a reasonable inference of any expenditure being of the disallowable nature could be drawn and that the initial burned of finding such material is on the AO as held by Hon'ble High Court Orissa in the case of Bansidhar Onkarmall Vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Orissa). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. V/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2013-14 Addition 3933900 7008192 3866301 3988975 - - - - 60083427 TDS deducted TDS not applicable 11474 TDS certificate and copies of a/c of S.K. Contractor in the books of the appellant for A.yRs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 are enclosed. Evidences to prove transaction PB 1060-1154 PB 1155-1196 PB 1444-1509 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the transactions with the above parties were duly recorded in the books. The payments were made by cheques. The same were duly reflected in the bank accounts of the assessee and also in the bank accounts of those parties. He stated that for the expenditure, the assessee had given following evidences: (a) Address (as available with assessee) (b) PAN (all were income-tax assessees and their address on record of Income-tax department was same) (c) Telephone Nos. (d) Nature of expenditure (e) VAT Registration No. (f) Payments were subjected to TDS (g) All payments were through banking channels. (h) TDS Certificates (i) Ban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee. No discrepancy was found in the work done. Rather the department got the valuation done by the Registered Valuer and later by the DVO. The department on one hand contended that work done was more as disclosed in the books; but on the other hand, they are doubting the expenditure towards work done. The stand of the department is contradictory and inconsistent. We therefore in absence of any concrete evidence placed before us the Revenue authorities and also since Learned Departmental Representative being unable to disprove the evidences filed by the assessee to support of genuineness of expenditure, find no merits in the action of Ld AO making disallowance of expenditure. Thus no interference is called for in the finding of Ld.CIT(A) . In the result, Ground no. 8 for A.Y. 2011-12; Ground No. 10 for A.Y. 2012-13; and Ground No. 12 for A.Y. 2013-14 of the Revenue's appeals are dismissed. 109. The next common ground of the revenue, Ground No. 9 for A.Y. 2011-12 and Ground No. 12 for A.Y. 2012-13 relates to addition for "on-money" received on Highland Project, amounting to Rs. 1,56,43,283 and Rs. 2,67,71,771 respectively. 110. The facts leading to this ground of appeal are t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On-money @ 7.5% on sale of Plots as per appellant Onmoney recd @ 7.5% as per appellant (sic - Profit on same @ 5%) 2011-12 NIL 0 0 2012-13 NIL 0 0 2013-14 434081000 32556075 1627804 Thus, from the above it is very crystal clear that appellant company has not sold any plot in AY 2011-12, therefore, no on money would have been received by the appellant in AY 2011-12. Further the addition made by the AO was on presumption basis because once the assessee has clearly narrated in his statement given on oath that he has received on money on sale of project then the AO has no locus to assume that on money was received on entire project. In view of the above discussion, the AO was no justified in making addition simply on guess work and presumption. It is settled legal principal that presumption how strong may cannot take place of evidence. Thus, the addition made by the AO amounting Rs. 1,56,43,283/- is Deleted, firstly, on account that no plot was sold by the appellant company during the year under consideration and secondly that the addition were made on presumption basis. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed ." 112. Against this,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 3,00,000/- Total Rs. 21,00,000 15.09.2011 19.09.2011 29.09.2011 30.09.2011 24.03.2012 A-2/13 116. Against this addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the evidences and the law, deleted the addition on page 90 to 101, holding as under: The AO has made allegation against the assessee that the has received that he has received Rs. 68,50,000/- from various customer as mentioned on loose papers 13,17,21 & 33 of LPS-A-2 in cash. In absence of any admission by either of the customer/payer or any incriminating documents/paper to establish that assessee has received sum of Rs. 68,50,000/-. The assessee has filed copy of ledger ledger account of these customer wherein it is seen that appellants has received advance from Smt Nirmala Chnadra, Smt Sadhana Tiwari Shri Vinod Semwal & Semwal of Rs. 50,000/- each through cheque and the same has been returned through cheque onlyt. The advance received from Smt. Shalini Jain of Rs. 28,00,000/- is still outstanding in books of account. Thus, the only inference which can be drawn from this is that the seized loose paper is nothin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex Court In the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.3.6 In view of the above discussion, material evidences on record and case laws cited, firstly, the AO ought to have examined the customer in question from whom as alleged the impugned cash has been received. Secondly, the AO should have done independent enquiry regarding the impugned transaction. Thirdly, the loose paper or rather say it as dumb document should be a speaking one having direct nexus with the assessee and transaction mentioned therein, which was not in the case of appellant. Thirdly, the AO did not reject books of account of the appellant. Fourthly, neither the customer nor any of the partner of appellant has ever stated that such transaction actually occurred. Last but not the least, the impugned loose papers were not found in possession of the appellant. My findings on the said issue under consideration are based on the various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andra, Smt. Sadhana Tiwari and Shri Vinod Semwal and Smt. Archana Semwal; the amount received, if any was refunded as the booking was cancelled. We therefore have no doubt in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissing the ground of revenue in respect of these three parties. So far as the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- alleged to be received from Smt. Shalini Jain, we find that in the loose sheet found from the office premises of the assessee, Rs. 4,00,000 it was clearly mentioned as received in cash. Analysis of the paper established that the assessee has received this amount from Smt. Shalini Jain. This amount of Rs. 4,00,000 ought to be treated as unaccounted receipt of the assessee. We therefore confirm the addition of Rs. 4,00,000 as done by the Ld. AO, and to this extent the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reversed. However, we notice that assessee have not booked income from sale of this unit in the current A.Y. We therefore remand this issue to the file of Ld. AO to verify as to when the income from sale of unit has been booked in the case of Smt. Shalini Jain and add the amount in the hands of assessee in that year. 119. As a result, this ground of appeal of the revenue is p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This was a computer generated ledger noting whereby certain amount was stated to be paid and received. Ld. AO noted that on being confronted, Shri Hemant Soni could not explain the entries contained therein. Further, some persons named therein were identified and called and their statements on oath had been recorded. They had accepted on-money. Ld. AO on the basis of same, held that the same represents on-money paid by the assessee in respect of purchase of land at Phanda. He therefore added Rs. 1,16,40,000 in A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs. 4,00,000 in A.Y. 2013-14. 125. Against this addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) in his order, deleted the addition, discussing the issue at page 163 to 175 of his order, Similar findings were given in A.Y. 2013-14. 126. Against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the department is in appeal. Ld. Counsel for the revenue submitted that during the course of search at the residential premises of the General Manager (Finance), Shri Yashovardhan Jain were also searched. At his residence, loose paper LPS 1/2 page 69 ot 71 was found, which contained a ledger account of cash paid for the purchase of land at Pha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(A) (relevant extract): 4.9.2 I have consideration the plea raised by the appellant and findings of the AO. It is seen that loose paper i.e. page no. 69 to 71 of LPS-1/2 was found in possession of Shri Yashovardhan Jain. The impounded paper i.e. page no. 69 to 71 of LPS-1/2, contain details of cash payment for purchase of new land of Phanda, is a document which is not signed by appellant or its authorized representative and contain some rough nothing/jottings. Appellant during appellate proceedings submitted that the AO relied upon the statement given by Shri Yashovardhan Jain and other sellers. The Sellers who has given statement under presume as retracted and has fuiled affidavit stating that no cash has been received from the appellant compant. This is admitted fact that statements of 21 sellers were recorded. This is also an admitted fact these statements were recorded behind the back of appellant. No opportunity of cross-examination was allowed to the assessee though specifically asked for by the assessee. It has been held by hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of DCIT V/s Mahendra Ambala Patel & CIT V/s Kantilalbhai Ravidas patel that statement has no e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,16,60,000/- is Deleted. Therefore appeal on this ground is Allowed.. We therefore dismiss ground no. 8 of Department's appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 and Ground No. 10 for A.Y. 2013-14. 129. The next ground of appeal is Ground No. 9 for A.Y. 2012-13 of the department's appeal whereby the department has challenged the deletion of addition Rs. 1,77,65,000 in respect of LPS A-13 relating to on-money in respect of 21 registries found from the office assessee-company and 6 registries found from the site office of Aakriti Aqua City. 130. The facts are that during the current year, assessee purchased following lands from respective persons: Name of farmers Land situated at Area Serial No. and P .No. of assmt. order Date of sale Regd. sale consideration Rs. Market value Rs. Addition made by A.O. towards unexplained expenditure Amt. (Rs. Remarks Smt. Rajshwari S/o. Anand Rawat Smt. Sonali W/o/Shri Mohit Kumar & smt.Shano devi w/o. Hari Prakash Saxena vill. Rapadia the. Huzur, Bhopal through power of attorney holder Mukesh Patidr /s. Shri /shivcharan Patidar Deepdi Patwari Halka Total 0.81 hectre 2. 00 acres S.No.6 P. No . 101 26-07-011 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in the case of DCIT V/s Mahendra AMbbalal Patel & CIT V/s Kantilalbhai Ravidas Patel that statement has no evidentiary value if opportunity of cross-examination is not allowed. Besides this, apparently the AO did not independently verified the facts about the genuineness of the said party as well as the impunged purchase transaction. It is not understandable as to how independently and impartially, the AO could reach to the final conclusion that on money amounting totaling to Rs. 1,77,65,000/- (correctly Rs. 42,15,000/-)was paid for purchase of land from different sellers without even bringing a single iota of positive evidence on record except the statement of farmers or POA holder which was also recorded behind the back of assessee. Hence, the addition made by the AO was based on mere guess work, conjuctures and surmises,which has no place in tax jurisprudence. In sum & substance, action of the AO is neither sustainable on facts nor in law, being based on Third party statement or sellers. 4.10.8 In view of the above, firstly, the AO ought to have given opportunity of cross examination to the appellant. Secondly, the AO should have brought evidence having direct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unknown. Further, the fact of payment of on-money was not corroborated. In respect of the second seller Shri Deep Singh (addition Rs. 3,64,000), Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that 7.10 acres of land was purchased by the asssessee for Rs. 2,43,44,000. All the payments were made by cheque. No incriminating material was found during the course of search to show on-money. Subsequently, his statement was recorded. He stated total consideration as correct i.e. Rs. 2,43,44,000; but stated amount received in cash Rs. 3,64,000 as on-money. Thus, the statement itself was contradictory. Further, the said statement was not corroborated by producing any bank account as alleged by ld AO. In respect of third seller Shri Lakhan Singh and Smt. Shanti Bai (addition Rs. 51,000), Ld. Counsel contended that 5.20 acres of land was purchased from them. There was no on-money payment and all the payment was by cheque and duly recorded in the books. No evidence was found during the course of search to show on-money. Subsequently, the statement of the seller was recorded. The statement as available at Page 110 112 of the Assessment Order does not refer to any on-money payment. How the Ld. AO arrive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the statement available on record. In respect of Smt. Matri Bai, Shri Rajmal and others, the confession of on-money was later retracted by the seller himself. It is a settled law that the statement of third parties, which are not corroborated cannot bind the assessee. No corroborative evidence has been brought on record to show on-money. Ld. AO stated that amount was deposited in the bank by the sellers; but why such bank statements were not brought on record and confronted to the assessee. At this stage also, no such bank statements were produced. We therefore are fully in agreement with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). In the result, Ground No. 9 of the Department's appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 is hereby dismissed. 136. The next ground of appeal is Ground No. 11 of the Departments' appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 relating to addition of Rs. 15,00,000 in respect of unaccounted cash transactions with Shri Vishnu Gupta. 137. The facts relating to this ground of appeal are that during the course of survey u/s. 133A at the premises of the assessee company in August 2013, a document LPS 16 page 42 was found. This document was a computer generated d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed upon the impunged unsigned rough paper found during the course of survey, without having any corroborative evidence on record showing payment/receipt of chash of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Appelant in support has placed reliance on the decion of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs VC Shukla (1980) 3 SCC 410 wherein it has been held that loose cannot be considered as books. 4.12.4 On considering the entire factual matrix of the issue, inter-alia submissions filed by the appellant I reach to a conculsion that the additions made by the AO are on presumptive belief that sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was received by appellant from M/s VSP Consultants P. Ltd. As discussed above, all the amount received by the appellant from Shri Vishnu Gupta was retuned back by appellant because the flat was not purchased by Shri Vishnu Gupta. Therefore, no prudent will pay huge sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for no reason to the appellant company. A bill was raised by M/s VSP Consultants P Ltd. for consultancy services provided by team to the appellant of Rs. 51,00,000/- on 14.02.2004 for total agreegate professional consultancy charges of Rs. 62,92,160/-. The appellant has paid entire amount of consultan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, appeal on this ground is Allowed." 139. Against these findings of Ld. CIT(A), the department is in appeal. During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the revenue took us to the Assessment order in the case of Shri Vishnu Gupta, and referred to the loose paper found. He contended the fact of the receipt was mentioned in the loose paper and therefore, such unexplained receipt ought to be added. 140. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the correct fact of the transaction is that Shri Vishnu Gupta was a financial advisor to the assessee-company and has been providing financial consultancy to the assessee company from past many years. When the consultancy work got completed, M/s. VSP Consultants P Ltd a company of Sh. Vishnu Gupta raised bill of Rs. 62,92,160 on the assessee company for consultancy services being provided by Sh. Vishnu Gupta. Further, Shri. Vishnu Gupta issued two cheques for purchase of flat. The same fact is also narrated in the ledger of Sh. Vishnu Gupta in the books of assessee. Thereafter, sum of Rs. 11,00,000 was received by the appellant from Sh. Vishnu Gupta on 28.12.2011 out of which Rs. 6,00,000 was returned back through RT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,20,00,000 as unaccounted receipts under LPS 1/2 page no. 68. 143. The facts relating to this ground of appeal are that during the course of search at the residential premises of Shri Yashovardhan Jain, a computer printed sheet was found. It was written in the sheet "Cash Bhopal" against various dates as "Dr" and amounts were written on credit side of this document. The total of this sheet was Rs. 1,20,00,000. Ld. AO contended that since the document was found at the residence of General Manager (Finance), Shri Yashovardhan Jain and the said document could not be explained, hence he added Rs. 1,20,00,000. 144. Against this addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, at page 71-92 by detailed findings as under: "4.3.2 I have considered the factual matrix of the case, written submissions filed and assessment order. During the course of search page nos 68 & 54 of LPS- ½ were found from residential premises of Shri Yashovardhan jain, employee of the appellant company. The impunged loose paper 68 of LPS - 1/2 , scanned on page no 32 of assessment order, is a unsigned ledger account with title 'AG8' and loose paper ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant cannot be blamed to be owner of the transaction. After considering the entire factual matrix and evidence/material on record inter alia written submission filed, I reach to conclusion that impunged addition was made on the basis of assumption and presumption which neither sustainable on facts nor in law. The appellant was also not given any opportunity of cross examination. Appellant during appellate proceedings has strongly contented that appellant did not receive any such cash and the impunged loose paper represent rough working by employee of other unknown person. Further, the AO has also failed to bring on record any cogent evidence, creating direct nexus of receipts of impunged cash as alleged by the AO. Therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence having direct nexus with the impunged transaction, the said impungad paper i.e. page no 68 & 54 of LPS-1/2 cannot be used against the assessee. 4.3.5 This is an undisputed fact that neither any incriminating material was found or seized during search proceedings nor Shri Yashovardhan Jain has ever admitted about receipt of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- and Rs. 1,04,88,000/- by the appellant in cash. On the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions drawn by me which have been discussed in the above paras. Therefore, the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- & Rs. 1,04,88,000/- being on sheer assumption and presumption basis. Thus, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/ & Rs. 1,04,88,000/- are Deleted. Therefore appeal on this ground is Allowed." 145. Against these findings of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that Shri Yashovardhan Jain was General Manager (Finance) of the assessee company. At his residence the document was found. The document showed "Cash receipts" on different dates, totalling to Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. The same was unexplained, and hence the Ld. AO was justified in making the addition. 146. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the document was a printed sheet. It was unsigned and it was unknown as to who created it and for what purposes it was created. The document was found from the residence of Shri Yashovardhan Jain and if he was unable to explain the same, how it can be deemed to be the unaccounted receipts of the assessee company. Further, the entries therein are mere dumb, only date is written....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 68, and deleted the addition. The findings of Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced alongwith Ground No. 2 of A.Y. 2013-14 above. 152. Against this, the department is in appeal before us. Both the parties made similar submissions as made in Ground No. 2 above. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the name of assessee company was nowhere written on this document. This document was not found from the possession of assessee company. Therefore, Ld. AO could not have co-related this document with the assessee company. 153. We have considered the rival submissions, order of the Ld. Lower authorities and the facts on record. The document, LPS 1/2 page no. 54 was not found from the office of assessee company. It was found from Shri Yashovardhan Jain, who was an employee of assessee company. There was no mention on this document that it is related to assessee. It is a computer generated sheet, which is unsigned. The maker of this document is unknown and the purpose for which it was made was unknown. This document, even if related to the assessee company, cannot be correlated with any unaccounted cash receipts. Certain figures were written on this document as A and B. How Ld. AO co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onclusion that impunged addition was made on the basis of assumption and presumption which neither sustainable on facts no in law. The AO has reached to conclusion that appellant received Rs. 1,28,64,700/- as unaccounted receipts and has made payment of Rs. 55,24,697/- as unaccounted investment. Appellant during appellate proceedings has strongly contented that appellant never received/paid any such amount which are duly audited u/s 44AB of the Act. The loose papers under consideration are the same which were found durng the course of survey in August 2013. The AO found that the documents represent unaccounted cash receipt/unaccounted investment of the appellant company. However, appellant has contended that neither such amount was received by the appellant nor was paid, infact, the loose papers were found from possession of Shri Yashovardhan Jain who has left company of the appellant. Appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Straptex (India) Pvt. Ltd. 84 ITD 320 (Mum) wherein ithas been held that the presumption u/s 132(4) is applicable only against the person from whom possession the books of account or other documentary evidence we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the case of CIT v/s KP Varghese 131 ITR 574 (SC) by Hon'ble Apex Court in absence of evidence that actually assessee paid more amount than declared in registered deed, no addition can be made. In the case of Banasal Strip (P) Ltd. & Ors Vs. ACIT (2006) 99 ITD 177 (Del) it has been held that:- "If an income not admitted by assessee is to be assessed in the hands of the assessee, the burden to establish the income is chargeable to tax is on the AO. In the absence of adequate material as to mature and ownership of the transactions, undisclosed income cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee merely by arithmetically totally various figures jotted down on loosed document" 4.4.5 This is undisputed fact that neither any incriminating material was found or seized during search proceedings nor the payers has ever admitted about receipt of Rs. 1,28,64,700/- and payment of Rs. 55,24,697/-. In addition, the AO did not make any independent enquiry about the payers of the unaccounted receipts/payment and has made all allegations on the appellant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIC of India v/s India v/s CIT (1996) 216 ITR 410 (SC) has held that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment is in appeal. Ld. Counsel for the revenue submitted that during the course of search at the residence of General Manager (Finance), Shri Yashovardhan Jain, these loose sheets were found marked as LPS 1/2 page 14 to 23. The loose sheets contained the details of expenses/ investments made and the details of receipts. These transactions could not be verified from the books of the assesseecompany. The story of the assessee that this document was just a typed version of what was found during the course of survey is a cooked up story. Thus, the addition was clearly called for. 158. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee assessee submitted that the facts of this document are that a loose paper (LPS 1-9) was found during the course of survey in Aug. 2013 at the office of the assessee-company. This paper was handwritten rough noting. It was found from the bag of one employee Reeta Shrivastav. Copy of the said document is placed in the Written Submission as Annexure 1 at pages 201-215. It was not clear whether these are receipts or payments. In many cases, dates were not mentioned. The figures ranged from 1 to 10,00,000. At that time, statement of Reeta Shrivastav was record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for filing reply to the Income-tax Department explaining the entries therein. Before he could have complied the same, this half worked document was found at his premises during the search. Assessee infact brought this fact, in the knowledge of Ld. AO. But the Ld. AO merely ignored this fact Ld. AO did not consider it proper to verify any transaction out of the said sheet, but merely added the figures in the hands of the assessee. The document LPS 1/2 page 14 to 23 in our view is a mere dumb document and nothing else, considering the fact that the same is just a half worked compilation of loose sheet found during survey u/s. 133A. Most transactions are undated; in many cases the parties or narration are not written. How such a document can be made a basis for making addition, moreover when the entries therein were not corroborated by the department. We therefore are in full agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue.In the result, the Ground No. 4 and 5 of Department's appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 and Ground No. 3 and 4 of Department's appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 are hereby dismissed. 160. The next Ground is Ground No. 6 of Department's appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 amounting t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent ground, the assessee is unable to satisfy the parameter of business expendiency. The assesse had paid Rs. 36,60,000/- in total. However, he contended that the seller was unaware of the assessee-company. Had that been the case, entire payment would have been in cash. It is not possible that for Rs. 36,00,000 the seller accepted the payment by cheque and for balance Rs. 60,000/- he demanded that payment be made in cash. We therefore allow this ground of appeal of the department's appeal and hold that the Ld. AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 60,000 u/s. 40A(3). 166. Now we take up Ground No. 8 of Department's appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 amounting to Rs. 1,34,78,580/- relating to unexplained expenditure as per LPS 1/2 page no. 51. 167. The facts relating to this ground of appeal are that during the course of search at the residential premises of the General Manager (Finance) of the assessee-company, Shri Yashovardhan Jain, a loose paper sheet marked as LPS 1/2 page 51 was found and seized. The paper was computer generated and was titled "URGENT PAYMENT REQUIRED". Further, details of project/ party were mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 4 and amounts were mentioned respectively....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of third parties. Similarly, Ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the addition decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Indrajit Singh Suri (2013) 33 Taxmann 281 (Guj.) that where additions were made on the basis of statements of persons who were not allowed to be cross examined by the appellant, additions were not sustainable. Since, the impunged loose paper 51 of LPS-1/2 were found in possession of Shri Yashovardhan Jain, the appellant cannot be blamed to be owner and author of the said loose paper. After considering the entire factual matrix and evidence/material on record inter alia written submissions filed, I reach to conclusion that impunged addition was made on the basis of assumption and presumption which neither sustainable on facts nor I law. The appellant was also not given any opportunity of cross examination. Appellant during appellate proceedings has strongly contented that the loose paper clearly represents estimate for requirement of funds wahich may have been prepared by some unknown person/employee. Further, the AO failed to bring on record any cogent evidence having direct nexus with the impunged transaction, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,34,78,580/- is Deleted. Therefore appeal on this ground is Allowed." 169. Against this, the department is in appeal. Ld. Counsel for the revenue submitted that the loose paper was found from the premises of the General Manager (Finance) of the assessee company. The document clearly mentioned that they are the details of urgent payments. The documents mentioned the name of the party/ projects and the amounts. Thus, the Ld. AO was justified in making the addition based on this document. 170. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this document which is a computer generated document is a rough noting relating to some requirements of the funds for making payment to the parties. The document itself speaks for itself that it relates to requirements of funds. Further, he submitted it might have been created by some employee to ensure that funds are available with the assessee company to make payments. The maker of the document and the purpose for which it was made is not known. He further contended that no enquiry was made by the department regarding the contents of the document from Shri Yashowardhan Jain. He further submitted that in the first part of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,00,000 Shri Ramsingh husband of Smt. Binda Bai attended on 11-04-2014 and recorded statementthatthereceivedRs. 1,00,000 in cash A- 20 125 to 135 1.Smt. Sarju Bai W/o. Shri Ratan Singh 2.Shri Devi Singh S/o Ratan Singh 3.Shri Narayan Singh S/o. Shri Gurubaksh Phanda 5.145 hectre 12.71 acres 07.05.2012 8,13,08,000 PB 1666-1707 8,13,08,000 2,00,000 Shri Narayan Singh and Devi singh attended and statement recorded on 05/08-02-2016 that they received Rs. 1,00,000 each in cash A-31 186 to 195 1.Ram singh 2.Shri Chandra singh both are S/o. Bahgirath 3.Shri Santosh Kumar S/o. Chainsungh Phanda Kalan 1.549 hectre 6.29 acres 14.05.2012 3,77,00,000 PB 1708-1746 3,77,00,000 1,00,000 Shri Chandra Singh attended and statement recorded on 26.02.2015, that he received Rs. 1,00,000 in cash A- 19 46 to 66 1.Smt. Harkubai w/o. lat Shri Gurubakash 2.Sh. Bhagwan Singh 3.Smt. Soram Bai 4.Smt. Sugan Bai D/o. Late Gurubakash singh Phanda Kalan 1.549 hectre 6.29 acres 11.06.2012 1,66,72,000 PB 924-972 1,66,72,000 Shri Bhagan Singh and Smt. Soram bai attended on 4/8-02/2016, they admitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- is deleted being on the basis of statement recorded behind the back of appellant and no meaningful opportunity of cross examination was provided. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed. 176. Against this, the department is in appeal. Ld. Counsel for the revenue contended that the Ld. AO was justified in making the addition for on-money. He relied on the finding of Learned Assessing officer. 177. On the contrary, at the ouset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the finding of Learned CIT (A) and submitted that althougth the Ld. AO mentioned of on-money paid by assessee company amounting to Rs. 13,50,000 in the chart at page 99 of Assessment order, however he added Rs. 1,00,000 only during the current year. The basis of this difference was unknown. The registries were found at the premises of the assessee during the course of search. No incriminating material showing any on-money was found. The transactions mentioned in the sale deeds were duly recorded in the books of accounts. All the payments were through banking channels. Thus, no addition for on-money payment can be made in these proceedings u/s. 153A r/w section 143(3). 178. We have considered the rival subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....40 of LPS 16, it was written on hand sticker "Pl credit Rs. 10 lacs to Aster of Mr. Vishnu Gupta" dated "09.06". Ld. AO concluded that on 09.06.2012 an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was received from Shri Vishnu Gupta against the purchase of the flat. Similarly there was another hand sticker with a noting "Pl credit Rs. 40.00 L to Aster of Mr. Gupta" dated "18.05.2013". Ld. AO concluded that on 18.05.2013, an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs was received from Shri Vishnu Gupta against the purchase of flat. Since both these receipts were not recorded in the books, Ld. AO added Rs. 10 lakhs in A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 40 lakhs in A.Y. 2014-15. 181. Against this addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) in pages 203 to 206, deleted the addition, holding as under: It is also settled law that AO cannot make any addition merely on basis of suspicion, however strong it may be. The AO is not justified in presuming certain facts without having anything to corroborate. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Djakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Vishnu Gupta was provided financial services to assesseecompany and huge amount was payable to him is verifiable by the fact that bill of Rs. 51 lakhs was raised by him for professional services. After adding services-tax Rs. 62,92,160 was payable to him. In such circumstances, insiting him to pay amounts in respect of booking of flats would have been unjustifiable. The notings do not state that any amount was received, but directs the staff to credit amount. Had Ld. AO any doubt in respect of the noting, Ld AO should have made enquiry as to who made this noting and what did the noting interpreted. We therefore are in agreement with the findings of Ld CIT(A) that the addition is uncalled for in the present case. In the result the Ground No. 13 of the Department's appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 (Rs. 10,00,000) and Ground No. 8 of the Department's appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 are rejected. 185. Now we take up Ground No. 1 of the Department's appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 relating to Cash found of Rs. 14,77,100 at the premises of assessee company. 186. The facts relating to the present addition are that during the course of search and seizure operation at the premises of assesseecompany, int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Shri Hemant Soni was unable to explain the same. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 14,77,100 was made by Ld. AO. Ld. Counsel for the revenue therefore relied on the findings of the Ld. AO. 189. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that search took place between 29.01.2014 to 02.02.2014. As on 31.01.2014, the cash in hand as per cash book was Rs. 75,01,959 and was very sufficient to explain the cash found. Further, he contended that on 01.01.2014 also cash in hand was Rs. 73,93,343. He further referred to a chart showing cash in hand reported on 31st march over different years, as under: A.Y. Balance as on Cash balance as per audited accounts PB 2008-09 31.03.2008 45,62,297 PB 37 2009-10 31.03.2009 8,93,257 PB 64 2010-11 31.03.2010 11,59,956 PB 90 2011-12 31.03.2011 16,70,448 PB 165 2012-13 31.03.2012 5,10,000 PB 190 2013-14 31.03.2013 42,96,000 PB 233 2014-15 31.03.2014 17,83,000 PB 278 He therefore submitted that assessee company used to maintain a sufficient cash balance. The cash in hand on the date of search was therefore acceptable. 190. We have cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in presuming certain facts without having anything to corroborative. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex Court In the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.5.6 In view of the above discussion, material evidences on record and case laws cited, firstly, the AO ought to have done independent enquiries from whose as alleged the appellant has received such amounts. Secondly, the AO should have done independen enqury transaction. Thirdly, the loose paper or rather say it as dumb documents should be a speaking one having direct nexus with the assessee, which was not in the case of appellant. Thirdly, the AO did not reject books of account of the appellant. Fourthly, neither the customer nor any of the partner of appellant has ever stated tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition at page no. 144 to 146 of his order, holding as under (relevant extract):- 4.7.8 In view of the above, firstly, the AO ought to have given opportunity of cross examination to the appellant. Secondly, the AO should have brought evidence having direct nexus with the alleged on money payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (correctly Rs. 36,00,000/-). Thirdly, the addition made by the AO are on assumption and presumption basis. Futher, the loose papers were found in possession of Shri Yashovrdhan Jain and not from appellant. Fifthly, statements were recorded by the then ADIT who was not appropriate jurisdictional officer. Sixthly, all the sellers except Smt Binda Bai filed affidavits stating that all the payments made for purchase of land are duly recorded in books of account. Most importantly, Shri Chand Singh vide their affidavits which are on record has stated that the statement given before the Income Tax authorities was given under pressur. My findings are based on the findings given in above mentioned paras. Thus, keeping in view the above discussion and judiciously following the decision of Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and A.Y. 2014-15 relate to the validity of assessment. Since no specific submissions were made by the Learned counsel of the assessee on this issue it seems that assessee is not interested to press this ground and further nothing was brought on record to show that the assessment so framed are invalid. These grounds of the assessee are therefore dismissed. 204. Now we take the common grounds, Ground No. 2 to 5 of the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 (Rs. 4,34,08,100) and Ground No. 2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 (Rs. 28,00,00,000) relating to addition on account of retraction of the surrender made during the course of search u/s. 132. 205. The facts relating to this ground of appeal are that during the course of search and seizure operations at the premises of the assessee-company between 29th Jan. 2014 to 1st Feb. 2014, statement on oath u/s. 132(4) of the Act was recorded of the Chairman and Manging Director of the assessee company Mr.Hemant Soni on multiple occasions. On 1st Feb. 2014, he accepted surrender of income of Rs. 50 crores in the group. Further, on 4th Feb. 2014, he gave the break-up of this 50 crores; and in the assessee company he accepted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2014-15. In the A.Y. 2013-14, he had enhanced the addition in respect of onmoney received on the sale of Highland project. Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 2,05,66,065/- on account of on-money received in the Highland project. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced the on-money received in the highland project from Rs. 2,05,66,065/- to Rs. 4,34,08,100/-. He relied on the statement recorded during the course of search that on-money received on sale of plots at Highland project was 510%. Since he enhanced the addition to Rs. 4,34,08,100/- i.e. more than Rs. 2 crores surrendered during search, he stated that making addition of Rs. 2 crores again would amount to double addition and therefore did not make separate addition for surrender. 207. Against this addition/ enhancement, the assessee is in appeal before us. In the A.Y. 2013-14, by various grounds of appeal, assessee is challenging the addition on account of on-money received on sale of plots of Highland project and further, the enhancement of Rs. 2.00 crores and adjusting the same against the increase in excess profits on the sale of plots at Highland project. In the A.Y. 2014-15, by various grounds, the assessee is challenging the enhancement of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Ld. CIT(A) could not also point any specific incriminating material He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) infact himself deleted many additions made purportedly made by the Ld. AO on the basis of incriminating material. 209. During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on a plethora of judgments. The same are cited below: 1. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC) Held that (a) An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. b). Retraction from admission was permissible in law and it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. In present case also the addition was on basis of voluntary disclosure u/s 132(4), which was later on retracted by the assessee. 2. CIT vs. Chandrakumar Jethmal Kochar [2015] taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) Merely on basis of admission that few benami concerns were being run by assessee, assessee could not be subjected to addition when assessee retracted from such admission and revenue could not furnish any corroborative evidence in support of such admission In present case also, the addition was based on admission which was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not accepted by revenue, and if no undisclosed income was found during search, revenue could not make addition on bare suspicion and presumption Present case also, the addition is on bare suspicion and presumption, which the department could not support through corroborative evidence. 10. Basant Bansal v ACIT (2015) 63 taxmann.com 199 (Jaipur Trib.) Held that neither any worthwhile incriminating material, information, and evidence was discovered as a result of impugned multiple search operations nor the additions sustained are based on any such material. The sole basis of additions is the disclosure which we have held to be involuntary. Consequently the additions do not conform to the mandate of sec. 153A. The addition in our case was solely on the basis of statement of surrender by brother/ brother-in-law of the assessee and not a single reference for any incriminating document is made. 11. CIT v. Balaji Wire (P) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 393/[2007] 164 Taxman 559 (Delhi), Statement made by any third party after the date of search is of no consequence; assessee has a right of its crossexamination. This having not been done the additions cannot be made In ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [2013] taxmann.com 170 (Jharkhand) Held that the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) without corroborative evidence could not fasten liability In our case also, since the undisclosed income could not be connected to any incriminating document, they cannot be the basis of addition. 19. Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah v. ACIT [2004] 2 881 (RAJKOT) Held that AO could not make addition only on basis of disclosure statement without corroboration and evidence in support of disclosure statement. In present case also, the addition was merely based on statement, hence addition is unjustified. 20. ACIT V. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 148 Taxman 35(Ahd.) (MAG.) Held that the surrender was under pressure as no such evidence or asset/evidence were found in movable or immovable property from the search premises, thus addition is unsustainable. In present case also, the addition was based on statement of brother/brother in law , and nothing incriminating was found from the search premises. 21. Naresh Kumar Verma vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Patiala [2013] 32 taxmann.com 280 (Chandigarh - Trib.) Held that addition in respect of job work c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ul Quyme v CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All) An admission or an acquiescence cannot be a foundation for an assessment. A finding in this regard is a condition precedent and where no such finding is recorded, the action of the authority concerned cannot be upheld. Similarly, in present case the admission cannot be binding without findings by the authority. 29. CIT vs Radhe Associates (2013) 37 taxmann.com 336 (Guj.) Held that the addition by assessee construction firm, only on basis of partner's statement which was later retracted, was not sustainable In present case also, the statement was retracted and hence addition is unsustianble. 30. CIT vs M.P. Scrap Traders (2015) 60 taxmann.com 205 (Guj.) Held that except statement, there was no other material or corroborative material with Assessing Officer to justify said addition - hence addition is unjustified Same as above. 210. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referred to CBDT Circular dated 10.03.2003 and contended that vide this Circular, a clear mandate was put on the officers of the department that instead of recording confessional statements, efforts shall be made on collecting evidences.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only on 06.02.2016 after two years form the date of search. In the retraction letter, it was stated that Shri Hemant Soni could not withstand the strain, and hence he made the surrender. Such retraction was highly belated, and further no explaination was given regarding the discrepencies found during the course of search. He also submitted that a retraction could have been acceptable only if assessee explains the discrepencies found during the course of search. 213. Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the judgment of Rakesh Mahajan vs CIT 214 CTR 218 (P & H) and contended that an admission constitutes best piece of evidence. Such admission is binding on the maker of the statement, unless it is shown by bringing positive evidence on record that the admission was made mistakenly. He therefore contended that no such positive material was brought on record to show that the admission was made under a mistake. 214. In respect of on-money receipt on Highland project, Ld. Counsel for the revenue contended that Mr. Hemant Soni himself came forward on behalf of the assessee company and voluntarily stated that the 5-10% on-money was received on the sale of plots in Highland proje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t furnish any respectively. The A.O. failed to co-relate the disclosures made in the statement with the incriminating material gathered during the search. Therefore, no inference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed." 217. Recently, in Ajit Singh Melhotra vs ACIT, IT(SS)A 63/ Ind/ 2019 vide order dated 22.10.2020, this Tribunal after considering various judgments including thoseof Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court and also following its own decision in the case of ACIT vs Shri Sudeep Maheshwari (supra) observed as under:- "6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the addition was made on the basis of admission of assessee's son during the course of search. It was contended before us, that all these documents were properly recorded in the regular books of accounts of the persons to which these documents actually pertained. However, we find that the assessing officer did not establish the fact that any of the documents as found and seized was not recorded in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial. As regards the addition made by the Ld. A.O made on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search there was no reference to any other incriminating material other than those considered above for making the other additions. 220. Even before us Ld. Departmental Representative failed to bring any incriminating material found during the course of search having its nexus with the impugned addition and which was not been considered by the Ld. A.O while making the other additions. So there remains no dispute to the fact that there is no material to show that how the addition for Rs. 30 crores was made by Ld. A.O for undisclosed income without corroborating with any incriminating material found during search. What is the working of this Rs. 30 crores, and how it was divided in two years is baseless except the confession of Shri Hemant Soni. Ld. AO himself pointed in the assessment order that it is not possible for the authorised officer u/s. 132 to put every minute detail of the discrepancies and documents in the statement recorded during the search proceedings. It is clear from the findings of the Ld. AO that this addition is purely based on a mere declaration an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively are partly allowed, Revenue Appeal bearing No.IT(SS)A No.87/Ind/2019 for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes, Assessee's Appeal No.IT(SS)A No.90&91/Ind/2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 are partly allowed, Assessee's Appeal bearing No.IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,109&110/Ind/2019&ITA No.922 & 923/Ind/2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14& 2014-15 are allowed. The order pronounced in the open Court on 16.02.2021. ============= Document 1 “Q30. इन पà¥à¤°à¥‹à¤œà¥‡à¤•à¥à¤Ÿ में कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ आपकी कमà¥à¤ªà¤¨à¥€ दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ on money (on accounted receipt) à¤à¥€ लिये जाते है। यदि हो थो इसके बारे में जानकारी दें। मेरी कमà¥à¤ªà¤¨à¥€ के अंतरà¥à....