TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....88/Del/2025 [Assessment Year 2019-20] 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed his return of income on 19.10.2019, declaring total income at INR 158870/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of the assessee. During the course of search from the possession of Subhash Chander Gupta, father of the assessee, one receipt cum agreement executed on 19.03.2021 was found and seized marked as Annexure A-1 pages 91 & 92. As per the said documents, assessee had entered into an agreement with one Shri Bittu Chawla for the purchase of Upper Ground and First floor at 307, Block-3, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi for total consideration of INR 4.79 crores. As per documents seized, assessee has paid INR 4.79 crores in cash on various dates. The image of these papers is reproduced at pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order. The AO observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, father of the assessee Shri Subhash Chander Gupta was confronted with these documents wherein he stated that the payments were made in cash out of the funds received from the sale of property by M/s Hector Enterprises Ltd. of which he was on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of receipt cum agreement from the possession of the assessee's father Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta and no incriminating documents whatsoever were found / seized from the possession of assessee. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Navin Kumar Gupta reported in 168 taxmann.com 574 has held that AO can validly re-opened the assessment u/s 147/148 even if the investigation involved the third party. In the instant case, though the assessment was completed u/s 153A however, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Naveen Kumar Gupta (supra) based on the documents found from the possession of third party, the addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. Thus, by respectfully following the aforesaid judgement which is the latest judgement available on the issue after the judgment of Anand Kumar Jain HUF (supra) relied upon by the assessee, therefore, we are of the opinion that AO could have made the addition for the documents found from the possession of the third party in the hands of the assessee while completing the assessment u/s 153A of the Act more particularly when the proceedings in the case of the assessee were initiated u/s 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on records. In the instant case, there was a search carried out in the case of the father of the assessee, Shri Subhash Chander Gupta from whose possession one agreement cum receipt was found marked as Annexure "A-1" at page 91 & 92 according to which the assessee has entered into an agreement for purchase of property at 307, Block-3, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi for a total consideration of INR 4,79 crore. As per the said paper, the assessee has paid a sum of INR 2.50 crores on 01.03.2019, INR 1.00 crore on 20.03.2019 and balance 1.00 crore was paid on 28.09.2019. During the course of search, statement of father of the assessee, Shri Subhash Chander Gupta were recorded wherein he stated that the said amount was paid out of the cash received of INR 27.99 crore from sale of property owned by Hector Enterprises Ltd. The AO has reproduced the relevant extract of statement at page 7 of the assessment order. It is further observed that assessee was also asked to explain the nature and source of such payments however, the assessee was not able to explain the same. The claim of the assessee is that he ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal are as under: 5. On due consideration of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer has given unnecessary weightage to the copy of MoU. The factum of transfer of a capital asset by Mrs Jind Singh in favour of the assessee was not established. The case of the assessee is that he has not purchased any land. The alleged Mol is a document exhibiting the negotiation of the purchase of land, but it never materialized. The Assessing Officer has erroneously observed that it is for the assessee to establish that land was not purchased. In our opinion, for charging the assessee with tax on account of unexplained investment, it is the Assessing Officer who ought to have established that land was purchased by the assessee and he failed to disclose the source of such purchase. Instead of discharging this onus, learned Assessing Officer treated a document as gospel truth and tried to put an onus upon the assessee to prove a negative fact which is not permissible in law. Learned First Appellate Authority has rightly considered this aspect and deleted the addition." 6. After having heard the counsel for the parties on this issue of....