2025 (9) TMI 1309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der the head Income from other sources on account of unexplained investment in plot No 3, Divine Enclave, Near Model Town, Phase 3, Part 2 Bhatinda. The order passed by the CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1300000/- made by the AO ignoring the fact that the assessment framed u/s 153Aa(1)(b) r.w.s 143(3) is bad in law since the same is without mentioning DIN which is a mandatory requirement. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO on the basis of seized agreement to sell which was neither signed by the appellant nor signed by the witnesses. 4. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition made ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18, are as follows. The assessee was subjected to a search under Section 132 on 28.01.2021 at both his residential as well as business premises. Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153A on 22.09.2021, the assessee filed his return of income on 12.11.2021. The case framed by the Assessing Officer is primarily based on an unsigned agreement to sell, which was unearthed during the course of the search. In this regard, it becomes imperative to critically examine the contents of the seized document, particularly to ascertain whether any sale deed was actually executed on the basis of the said unsigned agreement to sell. The relevant details in this respect are provided below. Particulars Dated S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No registry was executed pursuant to the said document, and the ownership of the property remained with Shri Manish Kumar (seller), as supported by records. c) The unsigned agreement relied upon by the AO was executed merely on a Rs. 50 stamp paper, contrary to applicable stamp duty provisions, making it inadmissible as evidence. d) The statement of the seller, Shri Manish Kumar, was neither recorded to verify the contents of the agreement. That the cross-examination was not allowed to the appellant in spite of request made by the appellant. e) The Ld. AO did not conduct any independent inquiry from Shri Manish Kumar to ascertain the authenticity of the alleged agreement. f) Latest Electricity bill dated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....indesh Goverdhandas Agarwal. In ITA No. 258/Nag/2023 dt. 10/02/2025 (2025) 39 NYPTTJ 321 (Nagpur) * Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajat Agarwal [2012] 27 taxmann.com 166 (Jaipur - Trib.) 7. Per contra, the Ld. CIT DR relied upon the order of CIT(A) and argued that the addition made by the AO should be confirmed. 8. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and the material available on the record. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the paper book filed, the judicial precedents relied upon, as well as the brief synopsis submitted. We have also taken into account the submissions of the Ld. CIT-DR, the assessment order, and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). On ....