Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1105 - AT - Income TaxAddition on sized material from search - addition on purchase of shares - Held that:- It is not in dispute that seized papers were found and recovered during the course of search in the case of Shri Surinder Gulati. These documents were used against Shri Surinder Gulati in his assessment and all these seized papers have been mentioned in the assessment order of Shri Surinder Gulati dated 28.02.2013 for assessment year 2006-07. The statement of Shri Surinder Gulati at the time of search was recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act which is also reproduced in his assessment order as above. The seized paper alongwith small blue diary marked ‘Raymond’ were confronted to him in which he has admitted that diary was written in his handwriting and belongs to him. He has also explained the abbreviations contained in the seized paper but none of the abbreviations were having any link or connection with the assessee. In answer to one of the question, while referring to the seized paper, he has explained that these are estimates and the actual fact remained that he has received money @ ₹ 3900/- per share. Shri Surinder Gulati did not make any allegation against the assessee in respect of shares purchased by the assessee. The seized paper as referred in his assessment order have been reproduced in which, on certain shares the value have been shown @ 3900/- as well as in another paper, the same rate is mentioned against the total shares of 3258 and in the third seized paper, total sale proceeds of 3258 shares have been considered by Assessing Officer in a sum of ₹ 2.13 Crores. This sale consideration was divided by 3258 shares and Assessing Officer concluded the value of each share at ₹ 6554/-. However, all the above material on record i.e. statement of Shri Surinder Gulati and the seized paper did not make any allegation against the assessee of purchase of shares at ₹ 6554/-. It was a presumption of the Assessing Officer that when one of the transactions is conducted by Shri Surinder Gulati for a sum of ₹ 6554/- then presumption would be that other shares have also been transferred at the same value. However, it is well settled law that presumption, what-so-ever may be strong but same cannot take place of proof. It is also admitted fact that assessee did not have any transaction with Shri Surinder Gulati or any of his family members. The assessee had purchased shares from Chadha family and even in search in the case of Chadha family, no material or document was found making any allegation against the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in the light of the findings of ld. CIT(Appeals), particularly when the additions have been deleted in the case of Shri Surinder Gulati and the matter has reached finality, nothing survive in favour of the revenue to make any addition against the assessee. In the absence of any evidence on record against the assessee, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) for deleting the addition. No error have been pointed out in the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). The contention of ld. DR have no force that when one transaction is conducted at the same rate, the same rate should be applied in other cases. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal
|