TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer to the income of the Respondent - Assessee to the tune of Rs. 8.87 Crores under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act"). 2. According to the Revenue, the impugned order of the ITAT gives rise to the Pr. Commissioner of IT - 3 vs. Rhythm Real Estates Pvt.Ltd. following two questions of law. (a) "Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. ITAT was correct in facts and law in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the A.O. under Section 69B of Rs. 8,87,14,048/- based on seized evidence by stating that the same is not based on any evidence?" (b) "Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. ITAT is right in ignorin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isk and pen drive) were found and recovered. A file found in the hard disk contained details of the payment made towards purchase of 36 landed properties in Maidan Garhi area of South Delhi during the year 2005. According to the copy of the said file in excel format attached to the letter of the Additional Director General, (DRI), the file contained details of the sellers/buyers of 36 landed properties, as well as payments made, both in demand draft and cash mode. As per the said information, the total amount paid for acquisition of the properties was to the tune of Rs. 54.29 Crores comprising of a demand draft component of Rs. 14.43 Crores and a cash component of Rs. 41.86 Crores. According to the DRI, the information relating to transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (A) before it and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. This is how the present appeal is filed before us. 8. We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant - Revenue and Ms. Khan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee. The CIT (A), whilst deciding the issue in favour of the Assessee noted all the facts, as more particularly set out from paragraphs 5.2.1 to 5.2.9 of its order dated 22nd January 2016. 9. To put it in a nutshell, the CIT (A) came to the conclusion that apart from the file received from the DRI, the Assessing Officer had gathered no other evidence that the Appellant had paid any on-money. This is more so when one considers that it was the Assessee's specific cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal of the Assessee and deleted the addition of Rs. 8.87 Crores made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69B of the IT Act. 12. The ITAT also taking note of the detailed factual findings given by the CIT (A), and which were not even controverted before the ITAT, upheld the order of the CIT (A) and dismissed the appeal. When one goes through the order of the CIT (A) as well as the order of the ITAT, we find that the entire dispute in the present case is fact driven. In our view, the CIT (A) correctly came to the conclusion that apart from the file received from the DRI, the Assessing Officer gathered no other evidence that the Appellant had paid any on-money. In fact, the Assessing Officer did not even proceed to conduct an independent....