Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 673 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment in properties - Additions had been made by the A.O. on the basis of notings on some documents / loose papers in search - HELD THAT:- A search was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 18/02/2011, during the course of search no documents in the form of agreement to sell or registered sale deed, evidencing unaccounted purchase / sale of the property by the assessee had been found. However the additions had been made by the A.O. on the basis of notings on some documents / loose papers but in those notings, nowhere name of the assessee was mentioned. In the present case it is noticed that the A.O. in his remand report stated that it is the modus-operandi of the property dealers that generally they do not purchase the property by way of registration deed but only by way of Power of Attorney and the same land is sold on the basis of the said power of attorney, hence their name did not appear in the registered sale deed or in the revenue record. However neither any Power of attorney in the name of the assessee, relating to any property alleged to be mentioned at the location in the seized document was impounded during the course of search proceedings, nor the revenue authority reported any such instance when the enquiries were made by the A.O. from those authorities and no such sale deeds were found where in the name of the assessee was appearing as power of attorney holder. During the course of search no valuable or cash was found or seized except 200 gms of gold and no document in the form of agreement to sell or registered sale deed had been found evidencing any unaccounted purchase / sale by the assessee. This fact has been categorically stated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5 at page 37 of the impugned order. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in presuming that certain transactions were carried on by the assessee particularly when he himself admitted that no documents in the form of agreement to sell or registered sale deed had been found evidencing any unaccounted purchase / sale by the assessee. A.O. made the additions only on the basis of certain documents on which there were some notings but neither the possession nor the ownership of any property mentioned in those loose slips could be proved to be belonging to the assessee, therefore keeping in view the ratio laid down in RAVI KUMAR [2007 (7) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT, PUNJAB AND HARYANA] no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee. Neither the dates pertaining and relevant to the year under consideration were mentioned on the loose papers / documents found during the course of search nor the notings were backed by direct or corroborative evidence that the notings have materialized into sale / purchase of property or there was any agreement to sell, which clearly shows that there was no corroborative / demonstrative evidence to justify the additions so made / sustained.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|