TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Tribunal, Delhi Bench (For short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 1609/Del/2011 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana (For short "CIT (A)") dated 28.11.2011 had been upheld and the appeal of the appellant had been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that on 04.08.2005, a search and seizure operation was conducted at the residential premises of the appellant who is a partner in M/s Reliance Estate Agency which is a Real Estate Broker Concern. Certain documents/loose papers were seized from his residential premises. Certain documents were also impounded from the business premises of M/s Reliance Estate Agency.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant to furnish documents and give explanation and after considering the same, an addition of a sum of Rs. 25,44,305/- was made in his income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2000-01 vide order dated 24.12.2007. Penalty notice was also ordered to be issued separately. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 250 (6) of the Act against the order dated 24.12.2007 which was dismissed by CIT (A) vide order dated 28.01.2011. 3. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed ITA No. 1609/Del/2011 before the Tribunal which too was dismissed vide order dated 25.06.2018 and the instant appeal has been filed against the said order. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the impugned order as passed by the Tribunal was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only on the basis of rough documents seized from his premises, no inference could be drawn that the amount of money as shown therein had been received by the appellant. The documents produced on record as Annexure A-1 had no sanctity in the absence of any independent evidence. The assessing officer and the revenue had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the documents allegedly recovered proved the allegation of receipt of any amount of money by the appellant. The addition in the income of the appellant made on the basis of figures mentioned therein, could at best be said to be tentative or estimated amount as the MOU and figures shown at page 55 of Annexure A-1 were shown to be bearing date 24.12.1997 whereas the sale deeds qua ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me to M/s Avon Tubetec Pvt. Ltd. by executing two registered sale deeds dated 29.03.2000 and 21.06.2000 respectively. It is not in dispute that the appellant was one of the partners of M/s Reliance Estate Agency through whom the transaction of sale of the plot No. 42 had taken place and that in the sale deeds, the total amount of sale consideration was shown as 38 lacs. According to the revenue, apart from the said amount of Rs. 38 lacs which as per the record was paid by way of cheque by the buyer to the seller, certain other transactions in cash had also taken place as on the basis of the documents seized during search from the premises of the appellant, it was revealed that a total amount of Rs. 1,68,38,610/- had been paid by the buyer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... figures though reflected some tentative/estimated transaction regarding purchase of property but did not prove that the vendor had obtained the amount of money shown therein or had shared any profit with the appellant. The burden of proving all this lied heavily on the revenue, but nothing could be brought on record to prove the allegation that there was concealment in the consideration amount as reflected in the sale deeds of the Plot No. 42 and, therefore, in our considered opinion, on the basis of these documents which are part of Annexure A-1 and are rather loose rough papers only, no reasonable conclusion could be drawn that any amount of money what to say of Rs. 25,44,305/- had been received by the appellant. 10. Further, in the abs....