TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sale deed pertaining to the land purchase is not in the name of the assessee, but, the AO alleged that the name on the sale deed is wrongly mentioned as M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd., the observations of the Assessing Officer are not believable/ acceptable as there is no material brought on record to establish the same by the AO. We observe that the AO failed to discharge his duty by making the addition without undertaking any independent enquiry as to whether the property belonged to assessee or M/s SMV Agencies, he could have made an enquiry to establish that who is the owner of the land. He could have further enquired with the vendors regarding sale consideration. He failed to do so. We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71/- as per the registered agreement of sale dt. 01/12/2005 in the name of M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The AO observed that the first part deals with the schedule of payments by way of DD for ₹ 9,02,33,471/- and the second part is with schedule of cash payments of ₹ 1,17,30,350/- apart from brokerage of ₹ 20,39,276/-. The AO treated the cash payments amounting to ₹ 1,17,30,350/- and brokerage of ₹ 20,39,276/- as income from other sources u/s 69 of the Act, rejecting the submissions of the assessee that the land deal in question was not by it and in fact pertained to M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and stated that the land deal in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mis SMV Agencies Private Ltd. 2. The authorities below have erred in stating that Sri Sanjay Kaul CEO and Sri Y. Bhaskara Rao GM(F) clearly admitted to the cash payments mentioned on the loose sheets. On the contrary, the knowledge and existence of any such payment was denied by Sri Sanjay Kaul and Y. Bhaskara Rao in their recorded statements (@ paper book pg. 163, Q5, pg. 164, Q7, pg. 165 Q 10, pg. 166 Q19, pg. 167 Q16 Q17, pg. 168 Q19, pg. 173 Q2 and pg. 175 Q8). The only admission was in respect of certain handwriting which was explained by Mr. Y. Bhaskara Rao (@ paper book pg. 173 Q2). Legal Submissions 1. The AO and Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering loose sheets of paper as conclusive evidence and making additions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... page 182 para 4, page183-184 para 11) 4. The addition is based on the assumption that since the contents of the loose sheet coincide with the Registered Agreement for Sale without possession dated 01.12.2005 in respect of cheques payment, then necessarily cash payment written on those loose sheets would also have been paid. However, the said Agreement for sale without possession was never acted upon. Subsequent registered sale deed dated 21.01.2006 (@ paper book pg. 143-158) manifests that a different land for a different consideration was actually purchased. Thus no point arises by linking I coinciding loose sheets with a document which was never acted upon. Refer: a. CIT v. Smt. K. C. Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (refer to judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and impounded. These documents revealed that the appellant had purchased around 09 acres of land in Ranga Reddy district for a consideration of ₹ 9,02,33,471/- as per the registered agreement of sale dated 01.12.2005 in the name of M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Along with the impounded registered agreement there were also two typed statements where details of payments made by cheques, through cash as well as details of cash received by the appellant were meticulously written. These annexures are marked as page 19 and page 20 of annexure 2/CBC of the impounded material. The assessing officer found that the notings on these pages correlated very well with the registered agreement of sale. Statements of Sri Sanjay Kaul CEO and Sri Y. Bhaska ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve revealed that the transactions noted on documents were not genuine and have no evidentiary value and that details in these loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive etc. do not comply with the requirement of the Indian Evidence Act and are not admissible evidence. It further observed that the department has no evidence to prove that entries in these loose papers and electronic data were kept regularly during the course of business of the concerned business house and the fact that these entries were fabricated, non-genuine was proved. It held as well that the PCIT/DR have not been able to show and substantiate the nature and source of receipts as well as nature and reason of payments and have failed to prove evidentiary v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
