TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search, a document dt. 30th Aug., 1995, with regard to purchase of the said plot for a consideration of Rs. 10.80 lakhs was found and seized by the Department. This document was signed by Sh. Kishan Lal, the seller and one witness. However, on 2nd Feb., 1996, sale deed was executed in favour of the family members of the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 2,77,000. The learned Dy. CIT made an addition of Rs. 8,03,000 (10.80 - 2.77). In the first appeal, it was urged that the said document was not bearing the signature of the assessee and hence should not be considered for making any addition. Not concurring with the contentions put forth on behalf of the assessee, the learned CIT(A) echoed the action of the AO on this count. 4. Before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. He could not controvert the submission of the learned Authorised Representative with regard to the non-examination of Sh. Kishan Lal by the AO at any stage. 5. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is seen that the sole basis for making and sustaining addition of Rs. 8,03,000 is the copy of agreement placed at pp. 26 and 27 of the paper book. On perusal of this document, it becomes abundantly clear that the signature of the purchaser, namely, the assessee are missing. The AO preferred this agreement over the sale deed showing actual sale consideration at Rs. 2.77 lakhs without considering the glaring shortcomings in this document. It is true that the finding of this document from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, we are admitting the same for disposal. 6.2 It is noted that the assessee is aggrieved against the levy of surcharge on the additional undisclosed income. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the search in this case was carried out on 30th July, 1999. The Finance Act, 2002, has inserted a proviso to s. 113 w.e.f. 1st June, 2002, which provides that the tax chargeable under this section shall be increased by surcharge if levied by the Central Act and applicable for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is initiated under s. 132 or requisition is made under s. 132A. The insertion of this proviso w.e.f. 1st June, 2002, has set to rest the diver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
