TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 284/D/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-25, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1071421715(1) Dated 20.12.2024 DCIT, Central Circle-3 Dated 10.02.2023 385/De1/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-25, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1071425643(1) Dated 20.12.2024 Addl. CIT, Central Range-1 Dated 30.08.2023 2. The assessee's return was filed at total income of Rs. 39,11,880/- and consequent to a search and seizure operation in the cases of Sh. Pranjil Batra Group on 17.08.2020, the assessee's case was taken up for search assessment u/s 153C of the Act. The appellant's grievance arises from the assessment order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the AO u/s 153C of the Act wherein the income of the appellant has been assessed at Rs. 1,51,11,880/- as against the returned income of Rs. 39,11,880/- and the addition has been sustained by ld. CIT(A). The relevant findings of para 7.2 are reproduced below: "7.2 Grounds No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8: - All these grounds of appeal raised by the appellant pertain to the addition made in the impugned assessment order of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- on account of under-reported amount received as consideration on transaction of property a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pranjil Batra group revealed an original sale deed showing transfer of the said property during the year to Ms. Poonam Batra for a sale consideration stated to be Rs. 36,50,000/-. In the deed dated 12.10.2018, it was seen that Rs. 25,00,000/- was received by the appellant vide cheque no. 000001 dated 30.04.2018 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, perfectly tallying with the information mentioned in the agreement to sell and purchase dated 29.04.2018 found which had revealed the unaccounted component of the balance payment too. This, as mentioned in the impugned assessment order, establishes the genuineness and correctness of the sale agreement dated 29.04.2018. The transaction clearly had materialized as per timing and condition mentioned in the agreement itself. The difference of the amount between the actual consideration as per agreement and the amount revealed in the sale deed, amounting to Rs. 1,12,00,000/- was thus added vide the impugned assessment order. 7.2.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has raised two main arguments. The first argument is that the agreement to sell and purchase found during search proceedings did not belong to him and could....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....done by the department from approved valuer, who, vide his report has valued the property at Rs. 51,84,000/-which fact has been ignored by the AO completely. I have considered the contention of the appellant. Even if the claim of the appellant regarding valuation report is found correct, it stands to logic that any valuation report can at best be an estimation based on factors existing at the time. In the instant case, in the face of incriminating documents found clearly mentioning specific amounts, dates and transactions, the necessity to rely on a valuation report does not arise. 7.2.4 The appellant cannot escape the liability of being the recipient of the amount clearly mentioned in the seized and incriminating document/s. That the documents were found at the premise of the searched person, i.e., the purchaser of the property, on whom the search action had been carried out, cannot absolve the appellant, i.e., the seller of the property of his role in the transaction and the receipt of the amounts mentioned in the seized document. It is a common practice in property transactions that payments over and above the registered amount/amount mentioned in the sale deed are made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upper ground floor and the other sale deed dated 12.10.2018 also mentioned same property has been purchased. 5.1 In para 4.8 AO mentions that on the physical verification it was found there are actually two flats of same size and both the sale deeds mentioned the property detail of upper ground floor only. Thus, it appears on the upper ground floor there were two separate flats which were subject to two different sale deed mentioning similar description. 6. It comes up that in the sale deed executed on 12.10.2018 there is a reference of cheque of Rs. 25,00,000/- issued on 30.04.2018 which matches with the details mentioned in the agreement to sell wherein the total sale consideration was mentioned as Rs. 1,48,50,000/-. 6.1 An interesting and crucial aspect that comes up from perusal of this agreement and sale deeds is that in the agreement one of the witnesses mentioned is shown to be resident of 346 West Guru Angadnagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and this person Amarjeet Sing s/o Surjeet Singh has witnessed both the agreements and the sale deed dated 25.10.2018 and 12.10.2018. This cannot be a mere coincidence. 7. The document in the form of agreement sell is not an inchoate ....