TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eet Singh Kohli and Charan Jeet Singh Kohli on 15.02.2012 for Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 4 crores respectively. The AO has reproduced the investigation report at pages 1 & 2 of the assessment order as per which it was informed to the AO that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the Brisk Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (BIDPL) and others on 10.10.2018. During the course of investigation, it was observed that assessee is one of the companies of the target group who has entered into an Agreement to Sell with abovesaid two gentlemen on 15.02.2012 for Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 4 crores respectively. Earnest money of Rs. 45.50 lakhs each was paid on 15.12.2012. Later on, due to non-payment of remaining amount, the earnest money was forfeited and claimed as expenses by the assessee in Profit and Loss account during the year under consideration. Further they observed that BIDPL has adopted the same modus operandi to claim forfeited amount as business expenses in AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Scrutiny assessment of BIDPL was completed and made addition of Rs. 5 crores as forfeiture amount of earnest money. They also observed that the group is invol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation and based on the forensic investigation, he rejected the documents and letters submitted by the assessee. He also sustained the adhoc disallowance of expenses made by the AO considering them as excessive. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, assumption of jurisdiction in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 and passing the impugned order u/s 147/43(3) and that too without complying with mandatory order u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax A 1961 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the ease 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the impugned reassessment order as the procedure laid down u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A has not been followed and jurisdiction has not been assumed u/s I53C. 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 and passing the impugned order u/s 147/143(3) is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various leg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * The appellant could not establish that whether or not two persons were actually owning the land and the title of the land was clear in their hands. * That the identical letters were written to the appellant by both parties on the same dates. Even the signature on both the letters are by the same pen. * That the documents and the case of the appellant fails to justify that the transaction was a bonafide business transaction. * That all the letters regarding correspondence for forfeiture documents were found from the computer system of the appellant. * The appellant was involved in fabrication of documents for forfeiture in order to make it look like a genuine transaction. * That the appellant was engaged in money laundering activity whereby cash received by the appellant in lieu of giving of cheque/money through banking channels. * That the forfeiture was a concocted deal and part of sham transaction. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee challenged the first ground and third ground which is against assumption of jurisdiction under section 147. He referred to pages 32 to 34 of the paper book which are the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imed as expenditure. He brought to our notice page 20 which is Profit Loss Account of the assessee-company for the year under consideration. He submitted that this was substantiated with the help of various evidences. He further brought to our notice pages 39-61 which is letter to AO with evidence. He also brought to our notice pages 114-120 which are written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) and also the pages 32 to 36 of the synopsis. He further submitted that ld. CIT(A) has raised doubts on the authenticity of three letters issued by the sellers on the ground that these were found in the computer of another company namely M/s Brisk Infrastructure P Ltd in the course of their search and brought to our notice pages 50 to 61 of the ld. CIT(A) order. He further submitted that first submission is that there was no certificate provided under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and thus, the authenticity of something which was not found from the possession and control of the assessee but allegedly found from third party is not established in view of umpteen number of judicial decisions. He brought to our notice pages 22 to 32 of the synopsis and also PB pages 163 & 164 of Digital Evidence M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no mention of the search being conducted in the case of the assessee. Further it was observed that assessee has entered into Agreement to Sell and their earnest money which was forfeited by the vendors and the same was claimed as expenses in the Profit & Loss account. On careful observation of the issues involved, we observed that the AO had received information from the investigation wing, since the same was found during the search operation conducted on 10.10.2018 in the case of one of the group company i.e., Brisk Infrastructure, the investigation wing has forwarded the same to the AO of the assessee with the (only)observation that the modus operandi was adopted by the group companies, the same was forwarded with the information on the basis that similar forfeiture was made by the assessee company. It is not clear from the assessment order whether the investigation wing has forwarded any seized material found from the group company or just their observations from the materials found during the search in the case of Brisk Infrastructure. From the recording of the reasons by the present AO shows that he has only received the information without there being any seized mater....