TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear ["AY"] 2010-11. The genesis of the case pertains to receipt of information by the Assessing Officer ["AO"] in the form of a photocopy of an alleged agreement to sell dated 5 March 2010. The said photocopy of the agreement to sell indicated that the land in Ghittorni, Delhi, was to be purchased against a total consideration of Rs. 11,00,00,000/-, wherein, the assessee was described to be a co-purchaser. It has been alleged that the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- as advance for purchase of the said land, which amounted to 25% of the total consideration. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 1,38,00,000/- was stated to have been paid by way of a cheque and the remaining amount i.e., Rs. 1,37,00,000/- was allegedly paid in the form of cash at the time of the execution of the said agreement to sell. 3. In view of the above, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] was issued to the assessee on 26 September 2014. The assessee appears to have filed the Income Tax Return ["ITR"] on 07 November 2014, declaring total income of Rs. 44,676/- for AY 2010-11. Consequently, proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act were initiated against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no explanation to offer in that regard. The relevant paragraph no. 7 of the said order reads as under:- "7. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, it has been observed that the Judicial Stamp vide bearing No. T253930 dated 05.03.2015 on which the agreement to sell of Gottorni land is made, is purchased in the name of Capt. Rajinder Singh Rosha, Mrs. Jalveen Rosha and Mrs. Rashmi Mehta w/oof Mr. Rajiv Mehta on 05.03.2010. Accordingly, the assessee was requested to provide the use of Judicial Stamp paper or produce the blank paper, if she has not utilized the same for Agreement of this property, but the assessee has failed to provide any reply to this query raised. The summon u/s 131 of Income-Tax act was also issued to the Seller Shri Rajinder Singh Rosha to appear and file explanation with regard to the Agreement to sale bearing No. T253930 dated 05:03.2015 as the amount is mentioned Rs. 11,00,00,000/- in this Agreement to Sale, whereas the assessee has stated that the Ghittorny property was purchased for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- {Rs. 2 crore). But, Shri Rajinder Singh Rosh a not attended the office on one pretext or other. Finally, vide order sheet dated 24.02.2016 the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by adding the difference of Rs. 9,00,00,000/- to the returned income of the appellant. However, as mentioned in the immediately preceding sub-para that out of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- the seller was in receipt of Rs. 1,38,00,000/- in cheque and Rs. 1,37,00,000/- in cash as on 5/03/2010 (as per the Agreement to sell). But, the balance of Rs. 8,25,00,000/- was to be paid by purchaser to the seller at the office of the Sub-registrar at the time of executing the sale deed in favour of the purchaser. However, it is seen from the registered sale deed executed on 7/06/2010 that Rs. 62,00,000/- was paid to the seller (Capt. Rajinder Singh Rosha) by the purchaser through banking channel (cheque No .008660 dated 7/06/2010 drawn on HDFC Bank) - cheque cleared for payment on 10/06/2010 as observed from the copy of the relevant bank statement of the appellant." [Emphasis Supplied] 12. The ITAT, however, by the impugned order had taken the view that only on the basis of a photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell the addition of any amount would be unsustainable. The relevant paragraph nos. 12 and 13 with respect to the aforesaid findings read as under: "12. We have examined the alleged agreem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eged agreement to sell. Further, the AO issued letter to the seller Mr. Rajinder Singh Rosha and received a reply dated 07.03.2016, whereby he has denied having entered into such agreement to sell and also challenged the authenticity of the alleged agreement to sell. The AO despite getting above reply did not make any further enquiry about the alleged agreement to sell. The assessee's contention that Mr. Rajiv Mehta has made the sign of all the concerned parties on false agreement through editing in photoshops like copy and paste as there are lot of lines coming on the said document and the buyer and seller have not signed this document, have been totally ignored without any verification or necessary inquiry being done. Not only that, the assessee has also pointed out specific inconsistencies in the photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell to demonstrate that the signature has been wrongly pasted on at the place where witnesses have to sign. It is important to point out that the sole basis for making this addition is the photocopy of alleged agreement to sell. We further note that, it is not a case where this document was found with assessee so as to draw any presumption or adver....