Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 929 - AT - Income TaxInvoking the provisions of section 153C - whether the documents seized in the course of search were belonging to the assessee or not? - Held that:- The document in question was the agreement dated 21.10.2002, copy of which is available on pages 110-117 of the paper book. This agreement is between Shri Amratbhai Talshibhai Desai being the party of one part and Shri Vikas Arvindbhai Shah and Abhabhai Arjanbhai Jadeja i.e. the present assessee being the other part. This agreement was in relation to sale of land owned by party of one part to the parties of other part for a consideration of ₹ 1,65,73,410/-. The agreement is duly signed by the assessee and other two persons and it was duly notarized also. Considering these facts, we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that this document is not belonging to the assessee and, therefore, this objection of the assessee is not valid. Not only the name of the assessee is appearing in the seized papers but it is an agreement between the assessee along with one other person to the sale of land and this agreement is duly signed by the assessee also and, therefore, the document found in the course of search is definitely belonging to the assessee - Decided against assessee. Unaccounted receipt in the hands of the assessee - Held that:- A clear finding is given by Ld. CIT(A) that even in remand proceedings, no further corroborative evidence have been gathered by the A.O. to justify the addition made by him. We have already noted that even as per the statement of Shri V.A. Shah, the amount received by the assessee was on account of refund of cancellation of deal and not on account of dalali/brokerage. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. In assessment year 2005-06 no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the addition made by the A.O. of ₹ 91.50 lacs on account of alleged on money payment by the assessee or in respect of addition of ₹ 44.80 lacs ultimately not made by the A.O. in respect of receipt of dalali/brokerage by the assessee from Shri Vikas A Shah. Hence, in this year also, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).
|