AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1006
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n ITA No. 15/Alld/2018 are reproduced as under: "1. BECAUSE the Id. CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the assessment order dated 19th March, 2016 is wholly illegal and bad in law as the statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the limitation as prescribed in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. BECAUSE the Id. CIT (Appeals) should have cancelled the assessment order dated 19th March, 2016 herself as the mandatory notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the time limit prescribed in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. BECAUSE no "Satisfaction" was recorded by the assessing officer to meet the requirement of law before invoking the provision of section 153C In the case of appellant thereby the assessment order dated 19th March, 2016 should have been quashed by the Id. CIT(Appeals). 4. BECAUSE the Id. CIT (Appeals) should have quashed the assessment order dated 19th March 2016 on the preliminary legal issues which goes to the very root of a valid assessment and in pursuance to illegal assessment the order passed by the Id. CIT(Appeals) is also bad in law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AFORESAID 5. BECAUSE the Id. CIT (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kari Avas Samiti as found from the premises of Dinesh Kumar Pahuja without bringing any material on records to prove any business dealing with the appellant with Dinesh Kumar Pahuja. 13. BECAUSE the Id. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in holding that the fake entries appearing in the paper L-5, page124 back side belongs to the appellant despite the categorical finding given by the assessing officer that the disputed paper was found from the premises of Dinesh Kumar Pahuja, President of Sindhu Sahkari Awas Samiti. 14. BECAUSE the entries as found In the loose paper L-5, page124 back side are third party entry which cannot be added in the hands of appellant as the said entries are not admissible as evidence under section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act,. 15. BECAUSE the Id. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law by treating contention of the company M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. as correct without appreciating the facts that the appellant is not the owner of the land but only a tenant. 16. BECAUSE the entries as recorded in the loose paper L-5, page124 back side are between the purchaser and seller l.e. M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd and Sindhu Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011 to 31.03.2014, which shows that Rs. 2.10 Crore (Rs. 1.05 Crore each) has been paid to the assessee and his brother Shri Madhurendra Nath. Consequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 153C by issuing notice under section 153C dated 5.9.2014. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed reply dated 22.9.2014 and stated that the return filed under section 139 on 30.07.2013 may be treated as return filed in compliance to notice issued under section 153C. Since, the assessee and his brother declared a sum of Rs. 60 Lac each as receipt towards compensation for vacating the premises i.e. House No. 11/13/17 Stanely Road, Allahabad which was occupied by the assessee and his brother as a tenant of M/s Sindhu Sahkari Awas Samiti sold to M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd, therefore, the AO issued show cause notice as to why the balance amount of Rs. 45 Lac each should not be added to their total income as unexplained income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. In reply dated 22.02.2016, the assessee denied the allegations of receiving any amount over and above of Rs. 60 Lac, in lieu of vacating the premises. The assessee also explained that the compensation was recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Appeal Nos. 168 and 169 of 2009. The learned AR has submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory in nature and it shall be obligatory for the AO to apply mind to the contents of the return filed in response to notice and thereafter issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act before proceeding to decide controversy. The non- compliance of mandatory provision vitiates the assessment. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned DR has submitted that the AO has duly recorded at page no. 2 of the assessment order that notice under section 143(2) was duly issued to the assessee on 16.11.2015 alongwith the notice issued under section 142(1) and in response to which the counsel of the assessee attended the proceedings before Assessing Officer and filed reply. The assessee never objected during the assessment proceedings to the notice issued under section 143(2) by the AO. He has further submitted that even otherwise the notice under section 143(2) is not required while framing the assessment under s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- "1. Because the Learned Assessing Officer erred on facts and low in treating that the appellant had received Rs. 1,05,00,000/- as compensation from M/s H.K. Infraventures Ltd. for vacating premises No. 13, (New No. 17), Stanley Road, Allahabad. 2. Because the Id. Assessing Officer has relied on the entries in the books of a third person (Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pahuja) and has failed to appreciate the replies and statement of the appellant thereby treating Rs. 1,05,00,000/- as compensation received by the appellant. 3. Because the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- as unexplained made by Ld. Assessing Officer is based on conjectures and surmises only. 4. Because in any view, the entire addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- is against the facts of the case and is liable to be deleted." 8. Therefore, at the outset, we find that when the AO has clearly mentioned in the assessment order that the notice under section 143(2) was issued on 16.11.2015 and the assessee did not raise any objection either before the AO or before the CIT(A) then merely because this fact was not recorded in the ordersheet by the AO would not lead to the conclusion that the fact recorded in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not treated to be a mere procedural irregularity in various authorities as discussed above." 10. Hence, the said decision would not apply in the assessments framed under section 153A / 153C of the Income Tax Act. On the contrary, an identical issue has been decided by a majority view in the case of ACIT vs. Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited (supra) and the Third Member vide order dated 12.04.2022 has considered and decided this issue in para 6.2 to 6.6 as under:- "6.2. Section 153A of the Act, at the relevant time, opens with a nonobstante clause, inter-alia, qua section 147 and provides that when a person is searched after the specified date, the AO shall: "(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b) ..... and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139". Section 153A(1)(b) states that the AO shall: "assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or requisition. Such assessments have to be mandatorily made by the AO whether or not he considers necessary to expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income. There is no choice with the AO except to make the assessments of the prescribed six assessment years. Once the assessments are to be mandatorily made in search cases, unlike the regular cases giving choice to the AO to make assessment only on considering it necessary or expedient, there is no requirement of acquiring any jurisdiction to do so by firstly issuing notice u/s 143(2). The very factum of search confers jurisdiction on the AO to make assessment under section 153A of the Act. 6.3. It is no doubt true that section 147 also requires issuance of a notice u/s 143(2) as a pre-condition for making assessment or reassessment. However, in view of the fact that section 153A contains non-obstante clause qua section 147, the consequential requirement of issuing notice u/s 143(2) before making assessment u/s 147, also gets obliterated in an assessment u/s 153A. Moreover, section 153A directly empowers the AO to take up the assessment without acquiring any separate jurisdiction. 6.4. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uirement of notice u/s 143(2) for completing the assessment u/s 153C. The above referred three judgments have been considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in B. Kubendran v. DCIT (2021) 434 161 (Mad) and thereafter, it has been laid down that there is no specific provision in the Act requiring the assessment u/s 153A to be made after issuing notice u/s 143(2). No contrary decision of any other Hon'ble High Court, mandating the requirement of notice u/s 143(2) in making assessment u/s 153A, has been placed by the ld. AR before me. 6.6. At this stage, it would be significant to note that a difference of opinion arose between two Members of the Mumbai Bench on this very issue as to whether requirement of issuing notice u/s 143(2) is there before making assessment u/s 153A? The learned Third Member in Smt. Sumanlata Bansal vs. ACIT (TM), vide his order dated 20.05.2015 (ITA Nos.525 to 530/Mum/2008), has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue by holding that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is not warranted while framing assessment u/s 153A. In view of the foregoing discussion, the overwhelming legal position is clear by which the four Hon'ble High Courts of the countr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that once the AO has specifically mentioned in the assessment order about the recording of satisfaction before the notice issued under section 153C of the Act and the assessee did not raise any objection either during the assessment proceedings or before the CIT(A) then merely because this was not mentioned in the ordersheet would not change the fact duly recorded by the AO in the absence of any contrary fact or material brought before us. Hence, the mere verbal contention of the assessee disputing the recording of the satisfaction, which find place in the assessment order itself, would not negate the fact of recording the satisfaction. Accordingly, we do not find any merit or substance in ground no. 3 and 4 of the assessment order and the same are dismissed. 15. Ground no. 5 to 20 are regarding the addition of Rs. 45 lac made by the AO on account of unexplained income allegedly received by the assessee for vacating the premises. The AO noted that during the search in the case of Dinesh Kumar Pahuja at Lotus Apartment on 5.12.2013, a document marked as Annexure L-5/ page 124 back side was seized which is a ledger account of land purchase in the books of M/s H.K. Infraventure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....memorandum of understanding dated 30.5.2012 giving the details of the payment made by the purchaser of the property in question to the assessee and his brother. The details of the payment are given in the schedule of payment of the said memorandum of understanding which is signed by the assessee and his brother on the one hand and Shri. Dinesh kumar Pahuja on behalf of Sindhu Sehkari Avas Samiti as well as Sh. Hemant Kumar Sindhi, the Director of M/s H.K. Infraventure Private Limited. The said document is also attested by the witnesses. Therefore, a compensation was received by the assessee under the memorandum of understanding which is signed by all the parties has been duly declared by the assessee in the return of income and there is no evidence of receiving any compensation over and above which is mentioned in the memorandum of understanding and paid through cheques. The allegation of the AO regarding Rs. 45 lac received by the assessee and his brother in cash is neither accepted by M/s H.K. Infraventure Private Limited nor mentioned in the memorandum of understanding. The seized document was found from the possession of Shri. Dinesh Kumar Pahuja (Third Party) therefore, he was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same has not been provided. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that when the assessee has produced the evidence in the shape of memorandum of understanding duly signed by the parties and attested by the witnesses as well as notary public and also explained in his statement recorded by the AO that the assessee has received only Rs. 60 lac as compensation for vacating the premises in question then in the absence of any tangible material to show the payment of the alleged sum of Rs. 45 lac as compensation to the assessee the addition made by the AO is not justified. 16. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that M/s H.K. Infraventure Private Limited has accepted the part transactions recorded in the seized document and therefore, the seized document cannot be accepted in part but the whole of the document has to be accepted and the transactions recorded in the document are to be deemed as correct. The memorandum of understanding dated 30.5.2012 is showing only the payment through cheques and the cash payment, component of compensation is not mentioned in the said memorandum as it is a normal practice when the money is taken in cash. He has relied upon the impugned order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The transaction is also found on the same page 124 back side of Annexure L-5. It is stated that during the search, if a part of document is found true, then the whole document will be treated as correct. Thus it can be said that the transaction of Rs 2.10 payment made to you and your brother Madhurendra Nath can also be treated as true. Therefore Please state why it will not be treated that you have received Rs 1,05,00,000/- for vacating the premises from M/s H K Infraventures during the year and why the remaining amount not disclosed by you may not be treated your undisclosed receipt/undisclosed income. You are hereby given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, you are directed to file your reply on 22.02.2016 at 11 AM. In the absence of any reply, it would be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter and proceeding will be decided on merits." 18. The assessee filed the reply dated 22.02.2016 which is also reproduced by the AO at page no. 4 as under:- "The assessee has filed reply on 22.02.2016 and relevant part of reply is - reproduced as under:- "Re: Compensation received from Mr. Hemant Sindhi for vacating premises No stanl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of payment in the said seized document. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and filed the written submissions which were reproduced by the CIT(A) in para no. 2 at page 5 to 11 of the impugned order as under:- "....That for the year under consideration a return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act was filed on 30/07/2013 declaring an income of Rs. 1,87,730/- alongwith all necessary paper and documents copy of which are enclosed at page no........of the paper book alongwith computation chart. From the computation sheet itself it will appear that apart from professional and interest income the appellant voluntarily disclosed Rs. 60 Lakhs in his return which was received from M/s H.K. Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. to vacate the property No. 13, Stanley Road, Allahabad which is a rented property and for vacating the property the appellant received consideration of Rs. 60 Lakhs only. Thus it is a voluntary disclosure in the return which proves the conduct and intention of the appellant. That after filing of the return notice u/s 153C of the IT Act dated 05/09/2014 was served on the appellant on 09/09/2014 requiring thereby to furnish the returns for six years starting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conducted. Based on the said paper the assessing officer presumed that a sum of Rs. 10500000/- + Rs. 10500000/- was paid to the appellant & his brother when in reality the appellant and his brother each received Rs. 60/- Lacs only and that is also in terms of the agreement/Memorandum of understanding dated 30.05.2012 Copy of which is enclosed in the paper book at page no...... That the reason for such payment was only because the appellant and his brother both were residing in the property situated at13 Stanley Road, Allahabad as tenant from the year 1947 and paying rent of Rs 2500/- per month. The property in question belonged to M/s Sindhu Sahkari Awas Samiti in which the said Sri Dinesh Kumar Pahuja was the main person/Landlord. The said property was sold to M/s H.K. Infraventure P Ltd in which Sri Hemant Kumar Sindhi is a director. In this regard there is no dispute of any kind between said M/s Sindhu Sahkari Awas Samity & M/s H.K. Infraventure P Ltd. That after purchase of the said property by M/s H.K. Infraventure Pvt Ltd. one of the directors of the Company named Sri Hemant Kumar Sindhi entered into an agreement with the appellant and his brother on 30.05.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rectness of the facts but the Assessing Officer failed in it for the reasons best known to him only and spared/freed to him and penalized the appellant uncalled for by making the unjustified addition without appreciating the correct facts which can not be called a judicious approach. In this regard the appellant rely upon decisions of various High Courts and ITAT Benches as mentioned in the list of citation enclosed in the paper book at page no........ The said notarized agreement and mode/amount of payment as mentioned therein have been accepted by the Assessing Officer and on this count there is no adverse remark anywhere in the assessment order. It means the assessing officer gave full cognizance to the said notarized agreement. The fact of payment of Rs 60 lakhs each has been duly confirmed by Dinesh Kumar Pahuja and Hemant Kumar Sindhi as per the agreement. That the addition of Rs. 45 Lacs was made by the assessing officer by giving too much weightage to the referred connected L- 5/page 124 only which is a rough, dump & duff documents only found from the premises of third party named Sri Dinesh Kumar Pahuja and the same does not bear anybody's signature a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he books of account, if maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the option of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be income of the assessee of such financial year." 21. The assessee has given the details of the memorandum of understanding dated 30.5.2012 between the parties which was executed and signed by the tenants, the landlord as well as the purchaser. The property was owned by Sindhu Sehkari Avas Samiti which was purchased by M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd,. The assessee and his brother were occupants of one portion of the properties as tenants. The said memorandum of understanding contains all the details regarding the status of the parties, the monthly rent of the portion of the property occupied by the assessee and his brother and the schedule of the payments of compensation for vacating the property by assessee and his brother as the same was purchased by M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., from M/s Sindhu Sehkari Avas Samiti. The details of the payment have been given as under:- i Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 185622 Cash Being cash paid to Nagar Nigam Allahabad For Name entry Fees in Landlord Register Payment 22 2500.00 51,52,000.00 51,52,000.00 51,52,000.00 Closing Balance Opening Balance 51,52,000.00 (as per details) Journal 208 2,10,00,000.00 Tenant-Jitendra Nath 1,05,00,000.00 Cr Tenant-Madhurendra Nath Transferred 1,05,00,000.00 Cr 4. The assessee had stated before the AO during the assessment proceeding that he had received Rs. 60 lacs through 3 cheques from H.K. Infraventure (P)(Ltd.) as per the agreement dated 30-05-2012 for vacating the premise No. 13,Stanley Road, Allahabad which was under the tenancy of the appellant and his brother Madhurendra Nath who also got Rs. 60 lacs as per the agreement. The AO has noted that M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. in its reply filed on 05-02-2016 during the assessment proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 has accepted the cash transaction of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tuated at 13-Stanley Road, Allahabad. Therefore, the Annexure L-5 page 124 found from the possession of Shri Dinesh Kumar Pahuja, the landlord, gains significance. 7. The transaction of a seized document has to be taken as a whole and cannot be treated as partly true and partly false. The settled legal principles is that documents found during the course of search should be treated as genuine with respect to all the entries recorded therein. The appellant is not justified in taking a view that only part of the entries are correct. Entire documents should be read as whole and contents of documents should be treated as correct or rejected as a whole. 8. Therefore, appellant's contention that Annexure L-5/page 124 seizure from the premises of Shri Dinesh Kumar Pahuja is a rough and dump document is not found acceptable. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the seized documents annexure L-5/ page 124 and the records are not the rough documents rather they are true statement of the actual state of affairs for the land purchase deal between H.K. Infraventure and the appellant. The seized document clearly establishes the fact that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y payment other than Rs. 60 lac through cheques towards the compensation for vacating the tenanted premises and the said claim of the assessee is also supported by the memorandum of understanding between the parties which is executed and signed by all the three parties and also attested by the witnesses as well as notary then before making any addition of the alleged receipt of compensation in cash on the basis of the seized document, the AO ought to have examined the person from whose possession the said document was found and also the party whom the document belongs to. Therefore, Shri. Dinesh Kumar Pahuja as Secretary, Sindhu Sehkari Avas Samiti and Shri. Hemant Kumar Singh, Director, M/s H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., were required to be examined by the AO and the assessee would have been given an opportunity to cross examine before making the addition. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examination of Shri. D.K. Pahuja and Shri. Hemant Kumar Sindhi qua the seized document and opportunity to cross examination be afforded to the assessee. 24. Since the issue, facts and circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... , which grounds of appeal concerns with the addition of Rs. 45 lacs made by the AO on account of unexplained income allegedly received by the assessee for vacating the premises 17(earlier No. 11 and then 13 and now 17) , Stanley Road , Allahabad, U.P.. My ld. Brother(JM) has dealt with this issue in para 15-23 of his appellate order. The assessee is Dental Surgeon. There was a search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter called "the Act") conducted by Revenue in the case of Mr. Hemant Kumar Sindhi , Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pahuja Group, residential premises of partners , directors and various residential and business premises of partners, directors and proprietor of the group, on 05.12.2013. During the aforesaid search and seizure operations conducted by Revenue u/s 132 , cash ,jewellery etc. as per Annexures to various Panchanama drawn, were found and seized. As per Revenue, the assessee has allegedly received payments from one of the group companies of Mr. Hemant Sindhi and Mr. Hemant Sindhi as per seized documents. After recording satisfaction in writing, a notice u/s 153C dated 05.09.2014 was issued by the AO requiring assessee to furnish return of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th( the assessee's brother also received Rs. 60 lacs through cheques from M/s H K Infraventure for vacating tenancy property 17 , Stanley Road, Allahabad ). The AO observed that the reply of the assessee is not acceptable because as per the seized document, the money over and above the agreement is clearly mentioned in the aforesaid seized document. The AO issued fresh notice dated 16.02.2016 to the assessee ( reproduced at page 3-4 of assessment order) , seeking explanation w.r.t. aforesaid seized document LP-5 page 124 back, and relevant part of the aforesaid notice is reproduced by my ld. Brother(JM) at para 17 of his order. The assesse in reply submitted that compensation was received from Mr. Hemant Sindhi for vacating premises No. 13(Now No. 17) Stanley Road , Allahabad which was under their tenancy. The assessee submitted that he had no dealing with M/s Sindhu Sahkari Avas Samiti whatsoever. The assessee submitted that he does not know Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pahuja. He submitted that he never met Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pahuja. The assessee submitted that he is not concerned with what Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pahuja writes in his books as he has got nothing to do with that. The assessee explaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) in para 20 page 19-23 of his appellate order(ld. CIT(A) reproduced the same in para number 2 page 5-11 of his appellate order) . My ld. Brother(JM) has also reproduced the operative part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee on this issue , in para 22 at page 25-27 of his order( ld. CIT(A) has considered and decided this issue in para's 3- 9 at page 11-14). 4. The assessee being aggrieved by appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) has filed second appeal with tribunal. Both the parties have vehemently argued on this issue before the Bench. My learned Brother(JM) has recorded in his order the arguments advanced by both the parties on this issue This document LP- 5/124 and its back page was found and seized during the search operations conducted by Revenue on Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pahuja from his residence at Lotus Apartment, Allahabad, on 05.12.2013. The aforesaid seized document LP-5 page 124 and its back page are reproduced hereunder : As is emerging from the records, Property at 17 ( earlier No. 11 , then No. 13 and now No. 17 ) , Stanley Road , Allahabad , was owned by Sindhu Sahkari Awas Samiti. Mr. Dinesh Kuma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions to the tune of Rs. 45 lacs as was made by the AO and later confirmed by ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the seized document LP-5/page 124 and its back page, it transpires that these are allegedly ledger ( allegedly part of books of accounts) of M/s H K Infraventures Private Limited , 17 , Industrial Colony , Naini, Allahabad , and the front page LP-5/page 124 consists of Ledger Account of Sindhu Sahkari Avas Samiti from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014 in the books of H K Infraventures Private Limited. It is admitted position that M/s H K Infraventures purchased Property No. 17, Stanley Road, Allhabad, U.P. from Sindhu Sahkari Awas Samiti who were the owners of this property. This seized document allegedly record payments made by M/s H K infraventures Private Limited( both through banking channel as well cash) to M/s Sindhu Sahkari Awas Samiti towards purchase of aforesaid land/property 17, Stanley Road, Allahabad, aggregating to Rs. 10,54,42,250/- , staring from 03.09.2011 to 13.03.2013. On 31.03.2013, the entire amount of Rs. 10,54,42,250/- was transferred vide Journal Voucher No. 301 to Land Purchase Account, which strengthens the view that all the payments recorded were towards Land/Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bad, U.P. from Sindhu Sahkari Awas Samiti who were the owners of this property. It is also an admitted position that the assessee and his brother Mr. Madhurendra Nath were tenants in the property 17, Stanley Road, Allahabad, which was acquired by M/s H K Infraventures Private Limited from Sindhu Sahkari Awas Limited vide registered sale deed dated 04.11.2011. Mr. Hemant Kumar Sindhi is Director of M/s H K Infraventures Private Limited . It is also an admitted position that the assessee as well his brother Mr. Madhurendra Nath entered into MOU dated 30.05.2012 with M/s H K Infraventures Private Limited and admitted to have received Rs. 60 lacs each vide cheques from M/s H K Infraventures Private Limited for vacating the aforesaid property 17, Stanley Road, Allahabad. The assessee has denied to have received any amount over and above the aforestated amount of Rs. 60 lacs received vide cheques under the MOU dated 30.05.2012. However, the said sized document records that Rs. 2,10,00,000/- was , inter-alia, debited to Land Purchase Account by H K Infraventures Private Limited in its books of accounts w.r.t. transactions with the outgoing tenants namely the assessee as well his brother M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vacating the aforesaid premises and reliance is placed on MOU dated 30.05.2012, but the assessee never produced Mr. Hemant Kumar Sindhi before the Revenue nor any affidavit of Mr. Hemant Kumar Sindhi or M/s H K Infraventures Private Limited was filed before the authorities below. I leave this matter here as I am refraining from making any comments on the merits of the issue , keeping in view the matter is to be restored to the file of the AO for denovo assessment on this issue of additions to the tune of Rs. 45 lacs as was made by the AO and later confirmed by ld. CIT(A). The aforesaid seized document LP-5/Page 124 and its back page was found and seized by Revenue on 05.12.2013 during searches conducted u/s 132 on Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pahuja from his residence at Lotus Apartment. Presumption u/s 132(4A) and 292C shall apply, and the contents of the documents shall be presumed to be true. The name of the assessee and his alleged transactions w.r.t. vacating the property 17, Stanley Road, Allahabad, are allegedly recorded in the aforesaid seized document. It is equally true that the seized document LP-5/Page 124 and its back page were not found and seized from the possession of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is required under criminal proceedings. So far as the seized document found and seized during search proceedings u/s 132 is concerned, presumption u/s 132(4A) and 292C shall apply. The contents of the seized document shall be presumed to be true, even if it is unsigned document. It is not uncommon in India that on-money is paid in real estate transactions , and such on-money paid are commonly in cash which are over and above the disclosed value as recorded in the registered sale deed, and seldom did any signed document will be found and seized during searches to reflect on-money in real estate transactions. The factum of proving onmoney has to be based on considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case which may vary from case to case, and preponderance of human probabilities is to be considered before fastening any tax-liability. Contents of the part of the seized document LP-5/Page 124 and back page of 124 is admitted by M/s H K Infraventures Private Limited. The name of the assessee is recorded in the said seized document. It is for the assessee to rebut the said presumption. It is also true that this document was not seized from possession of the assessee. It is also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00,000.00 Being Cash paid 22-10-2012 To Cash Payment 191 5,00,000.00 12-12-2012 To Cash Payment 256 31,00,000.00 cash paid. 13-3-2013 To Cash 31-3-2013 By Land Purchase Payment Journal 397 301 54,40,000.00 10,54,42,250 0 3044.38x33000 10.34 42250 953 42 250/ 10,54,42,250.00 10,54,42,250.0 Neela Nath 2545-27 3044 100456716.36 100.00.000. ✓ 30456711 Document 2 Ha-5/124/Cachhide L-S HK-IPL 17, INDUSTRIAL COLONY NAINI ALLAHABAD Land Purchase Ledger Account 1-Apr-2011 to 31-Mar-2014 Vch Type Vch No. Debit Payment 13 51,49,500.00 Particulars sh ng Registry made and Stamp duty paid 5139500- and Other Fees paid Receipt 185622. sh ng cash paid to Nagar Nigam Allahabad Name entry Fees in Landlord Register. Closing Balance Bening Balance Payment 22 2,500.00 51,52,000.00 51,52,000.00 51,52,000.00 51,52,000.00 51,52,000.00 per details) Journal 208 2,10,00,000.00 nont--Jitendra Nath 1,05,00,000.00 Cr Ment- Madhurendra Nath 1,05,00,000.00 Cr ansfered. ndhu Sahkarl Avas Samiti Journal 3....