2025 (9) TMI 1237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sources not disclosed to the Department." 2. Brief facts of the case are that a Search & Seizure operation u/s 132 was conducted on 17.08.11 on the Assessee, and other members of the group at various residential and business premises. After the Search, the jurisdiction over the Assessee was transferred from the ITO Ward-24(1), New Delhi to Central Circle-9, New Delhi vide Order u/s 127 dated 25.09.13 of CIT-VIII, New Delhi. In response to Notice u/s 143(2) dt. 30.09.13, the Assessee filed Return declaring income at Rs. 6,68,570/-. During the course of Search conducted on 17.08.11, certain documents being pages 32 to 36, being an MOU dated 10.08.11 were seized from the residence of Sh. Surendra Kumar Gupta, photocopy of which being pages 13....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... heard both the parties and perused the records alongwith the written submissions filed by both sides. It is observed that Assessee has claimed that the MOU was not found from the premises of Sh. D.K. Gupta, and hence the onus was not upon the Assessee. It was contended that the Assessing Officer has considered only one part of the MOU and he has not considered the full performance of the MOU and since Shrey Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Snerea Properties Pvt. Ltd, who were the owners of the Property in question i.e. 15 /1 Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi, were not confirming Parties in the MOU, the MOU had not taken any relevance, and it was executed just for the sake of good family relationship. It was the contention of the assessee that neither an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by them bounced and several Court Cases were filed against them and were pending. The Assessee has stated that in the MOU, there is no reference or mention of Rs. 25 Crores paid to Hyderabad Party, long back by Sh. D.K. Gupta and others, as the fact regarding the Hyderabad case was well known to the family members. The Assessee has also claimed that the MOU was drawn up to swap and settle the amount which had been advanced to the Hyderabad Party on the insistence of Sh. Sanjeev J. Aeren, and that the MOU was just a family settlement to put pressure on Sh. Sanjeev J. Aeren for recovery of loan advanced to Hyderabad Party. Perusal of the MOU dated 10.08.11 shows that the MOU is between two individuals i.e. the two brothers, Sh. D.K. Gupta ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut repayment of the loan, it is to be done by Companies, but on the other hand, the Assessing Officer rejects the claim of the Assessee that the original loan by the First Party was through Companies. Thus the stand of the Assessing Officer is contradictory and cannot be accepted. It is seen that merely because the word 'Cash Loan' was used in the MOU, the Assessing Officer was drawn to the conclusion that Cash i.e. Currency must have been paid. However, while arriving at this conclusion, the Assessing Officer failed not only to look at all the facts and circumstances, but also failed to properly study the MOU which shows that not only the MOU appeared to be a casual document, but also that specific performance had to be carried out....