TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the addition made amounting to Rs. 1,90,50,000/- on account of payment made from an unaccounted sources. 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was completed on 30/12/2009 at total income of Rs. 17,85,843/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee entered into an agreement for purchase of land in Defence Colony, New Delhi, for a total consideration of Rs. 2,90,50,000/-, however, in the books of account value of the said land was recorded only at Rs. 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sented undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through video conference facilities. We have heard rival arguments and perused the material on record, including orders of the lower authorities. The facts in brief in relation to adjudication of the ground have been summarized by the learned CIT(A) in Para 4 of the impugned order, which have not been disputed by the parties. The relevant part of the order of the Learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under: "4. The AO relied on the seized deed and made the addition of Rs. 1,90,50,000/- on the basis of documents found during the search and seizure of AKN Group. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tting/pasting/data of some other clients are also copied by mistake which shows various discrepancies/variance as per actual figures/amounts/terms. Further, the document deed writer, Mr. Naresh Gupta has submitted his letter in writing on 16.02.2015 which is reproducing here: 'This is in reference of the case of M/s. I G Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2007; Documents under reference seized from the hard disc have no evidentiary value in the eye of law. It does not reflect true nature of transaction. I am not aware of any money transaction between the parties. I am in consultancy and drafting of various deeds for the sale/purchase of properties of my various clients. Sometimes cut/paste of various documents in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y." The following case laws with similar facts which support the assessee's contention are mentioned below-: * CIT Vs. Jaipal Aggarwal [2013] 212 Taxman 1 (Delhi) * Sharad Chaudhary, New Delhi vs Department of Income Tax (itat, Delhi) (25.07.2014) * Delhi Tribunal in case of Mahan Foods Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 27 DTR 185. * Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Maulik Kumar K. Shah 307 ITR 137 * Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yusuf & ANR. Vs. D & ANR. AIR 1968 Bom 112 * Decision of Delhi Tribunal in case of SK Gupta v/s DCIT 63 TTJ 532 * The apex court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410." 4. In the background of the above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 and by Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Maulik Kumar K. Shah 307 ITR 137. In the following cases the Tribunal have held that merely on the basis of dumb documents seized, i.e. from which nothing could be clearly understood, cannot form a justified base for making additions -Sharad Chaudhary, New Delhi vs Department of Income Tax (ITAT, Delhi) (25.07.2014); Delhi tribunal in case of Mahan Foods Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 27 DTR 185. Therefore, merely unsigned deed found in the course of search may not be sufficient for the revenue to prove that the entries represent undisclosed income of the assessee. As far as the evidentiary value of the entries in the above books of accounts are concerned the matter of taxability cannot be decide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made addition of Rs. 1,90,50,000/- on the basis of soft copy of a deed found from the computer of deed writer Sh. Naresh Sharma. No copy signed by the assessee and seller parties with a transaction of Rs. 2,90,50,000/- has been found during the course of the search of Sh Naresh Gupta. The deed writer, himself has denied of having aware of any money transaction between the parties, which was recorded in the computer. He stated during the course of search that amount mentioned may be as a result of cut/paste of various documents in the computer. We find that the Assessing Officer has made addition only on the basis of said unsigned deed and no corroborative evidences have been brought on record to show that purchase transaction was executed ....