TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,56,37,412/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure for purchase of land in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The ld. DR, Shri M.G. Jasnani submits that a loose paper found in the case of Zaheeruddin S. Kokani during search and seizure action which clearly pointed that a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was paid by the assessee which is above the agreed sale consideration against the land at Survey No. 573/3/1 to 573/3/5. The AO taking into consideration added an amount of Rs.1,56,37,412/- on account of unexplained expenditure for purchase of land in the hands of the assessee. The ld. DR argued that the CIT(A) agreed with the assessee's contention and deleted the addition made which is based on wrong appreciation of facts and judgment relied by the CIT(A) are completely distinguishable for the facts of the present case. He submits that Zaheeruddin S. Kokani never retracted his statement and denied the receipt of cash of Rs.2 crores. The notings of the seized paper completely corroborated with the statement of Zaheeruddin S. Kokani who confirmed the fact of payment to the assessee. The ld. DR contended that the assessee's contention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uddin S. Kokani and the notings of the said seized loose papers explains the cash payment by the assessee to the said person. He referred to order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rajendra M. Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. in IT(SS)A No. 05/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 and submits that this Tribunal held no addition can be made merely based on statement without bringing independent corroborative evidence on record stating that on-money consideration in cash was paid. Further, he referred to order of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi in ITA No. 1504/Hyd/2010 and argued that the appellant-revenue cannot draw inference on the basis of suspicion, conjectures, surmises that the cash consideration was passed on, basing on a loose sheet found at the premises of third party which is not enough material to sustain the addition. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. According to the AO incriminating material being Annexure A, Item No. 3, Page No. 8 was found during the search and seizure on 08-09-2015 conducted at Kokani group at the premises of Mr. Zaheeruddin Sallauddin Kokani. A scanned image of incriminating document and re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeruddin Sallauddin Kokani. In view of the same if we examine the seized document at Page No. 2 of the assessment order we find no name of assessee is found. As it appears from the record that the AO made addition in the hands of assessee on account of unexplained expenditure only on the statement of the said Mr. Zaheeruddin Sallauddin Kokani in terms of the said seized loose document, in our opinion, is not sufficient evidence to make addition in the hands of assessee as there was no name, signature and date of assessee reflected in the said loose documents. There cannot be any addition by relying on a statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act without there being any independent corroborative evidence. The contention of ld. AR is that the AO made disputed addition only on the presumption and assumptions and the presumption u/s. 132(4A) of the Act is not applicable to third parties other than the searched person. The CIT(A) in his order discussed the said issue at Page No. 17 and placed reliance on the order of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Straptex (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 84 ITD 320 which held the presumption u/s. 132(4A) of the Act is applicable only against the person from wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olidays and claim of exception provided in Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules. We note that no expenditure claimed as the said payment was made on cancellation of shathekhat (agreement to purchase). On perusal of impugned order at Page No. 24, we note that the assessee filed calendar for relevant period showing bank holiday, Office Circular No.07/2010 dated 24-11-2010 issued by Chief General Manager (HRD). The CIT(A) considering the bank holidays and circular relied there upon deleted the addition made by the AO. The ld. DR did not bring on record any evidence rebutting the finding rendered by the CIT(A) in terms of exception contemplated in Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in this regard. 11. Regarding the payment made to Mr. Gend Sagar Parasharam for Rs.11,00,000/- and Mr. Kamal Singh Sohansingh Chitodiya in respect of Rs.4,00,000/-, we note that the said two payments were made before the Sub-Registrar, Nashik which are part of sale consideration. We find the CIT(A) discussed the said issue in his order at Page No. 25 and by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Dnyaneshwar Jagannath Dhamne in ITA No. 202/PN/2016 for ....