TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 6,31,50,000/- made u/s. 69 of the Act, despite the fact that the addition was made on the basis of incriminating details/document i.e notarized agreement recovered during the survey proceedings, and without appreciating the entire gamut of facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer? [B] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal is ex-facie perverse, because the Hon'ble ITAT has deleted the addition made by the AO, by accepting the submission of the assessee that the notarized agreement was signed by him though coercion and threat and against which he has field complain with the various government/police authorities including PMO, without appreciating the fact that none of the complaints have yet reached finality or conclusion in order to accept that the said document was prepared under threat or duress and the contents of the same are not correct? [C] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in ex-facie perverse, because the Hon'ble ITAT has deleted the addition of Rs. 6,31,50,000/- by observing that the addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." 2. Brief facts of this appeal are as follows:- 2.1 The respondent- assessee filed Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 28.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 37,33,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,55,360/-. The Return of Income was processed under Sec.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the Assessment Order under Sec.143(3) of the Act was passed on 10.12.2019 accepting the Return of Income. 2.2 A Survey under Sec.133A of the Act was conducted on 14.10.2020 at the premises of the respondent - assessee. During the course of Survey proceedings, various incriminating documents were found and impounded. On verification of backup of mobile of the respondent - assessee, a notarized agreement dated 21.12.2019 was found and it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that total investments of Rs. 6,31,50,000/- was executed between the respondent - assessee and the third party. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice under Sec. 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021. 2.3 In response to the notice under Sec. 148 of the Act, the respondent - assessee on 23.04.2021 filed the Ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 6,03,50,000/- which is not admitted, by the assessee is stated, to be paid through, banking channels in the agreement. In such case it was the responsibility of the DDIT/AO to find out from the parties to the agreement as to from which bank account the funds have travelled to the bank accounts of recipients. This is the core investigation for taking this case to its logical conclusion, which has not been done. The assessee has been, stating which is evident from his complaints filed before PMO, Home Ministry and Police that he was coerced into signing the said, agreement. Under these circumstances, the other parties to the agreement should have been examined to ascertain, the details of the bank transactions which are referred in the agreement. Since, these bank transactions are not proved to have been taken, place as per the agreement, therefore Id CIT(A) held that the addition cannot be made only on the basis of the agreement found in the mobile phone of the assessee. 17. The Ld CIT(A) further noted that assessing officer found a particular evidence in the form of the agreement, the contents of which the assessee has partly disputed (amounting to Rs. 6,03,50,000/-). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hence second inning should not be given to the assessing officer to examine the said agreement, which he has already scrutinized. 20. The said investment mentioned in the agreement, which is dump document, cannot be taxed merely on the basis of the agreement found without there being any statements from the recipients of the money or without corroboration with the banking transactions, showing flow of funds from the assessee to the other parties. Therefore, we note that said notarized agreement dated 21.12.2019 already became null and void. That, said agreement was not materialized and paper amount as reflected in the notice as well as agreement has never been executed. Besides, said agreement was not executed as per the notice amount and therefore it is not shown in respective balance sheets. Therefore, we note that said agreement should be treated as null and void in the eye of law. We have gone through the above findings of id CIT(A) and noted that conclusion reached by Id CIT(A), are correct and admit no interference by us. That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, ....