2022 (11) TMI 314 - AT - Income Tax
Addition u/s 69A - CIT(A) deleted the addition - In search proceedings data retrieved from the hard disk revealed undated, unsigned and unexecuted Draft Deed and draft cash receipt relating to the transaction of sale of property between assessee and Shri Munish Arora - HELD THAT:- While deleting the addition, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) was guided by the fact that the addition was made on the basis of undated, unsigned and unexecuted Draft Deed and draft cash receipt retrieved from the hard disk of Shri Naresh Gupta, there being no 3rd party confirmation or corroborating evidence of the receipt of cash. We do not agree with the reasoning given by the CIT(A) for deleting the addition.
We find that A.O. has noted that the Draft Deed retrieved from the hard disk showed that the major constituents like the Vendor, Vendee, the name of the shareholders and their shareholdings, the sale consideration were exactly similar in the Draft Deed and original Sale Deed executed by the assessee. In the Draft Deed there was mention about the part of sale consideration of Rs.5 crore paid by Cheque No.222546 dated 16.04.2010 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Greater Kailash which matched with the part of sale consideration mentioned in the original Sale Deed executed by the assessee.
Thus, when the part of the sale consideration of Rs.5 crores along with the date of cheque, its number and the bank on which it was drawn matched with the Draft Agreement, then this material evidence cannot be simply ignored and brushed aside and overlooked by holding that the Draft Agreement was undated, unstamped and, therefore, cannot be relied upon.
A bare reading of Section 69A makes it clear that where the property described under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by the assessee from any source of income and the assessee does not offer any explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of such property and the explanation offered is not satisfactory in the opinion of A.O, then the value of such property would be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.
We find that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Bimal Parkash Gupta [1989 (1) TMI 42 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that the expression “income” as used in Section 69A has a wide meaning and means anything which come in or resulted in gain. The case law relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable on facts and, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case - we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. We, therefore, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and uphold the order of A.O. Thus, the ground of Revenue is allowed.