Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 441 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment - AO was of the view that the seized document reveals that the assessee had entered into cash transaction related to purchase and sale of flat - CIT(A) treating the incriminating documents seized during the search action u/s. 132 oas dumb document and deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT-DR for the revenue raised additional plea before us that Param Property, on whom search action was carried out has accepted all the transaction in the Petition filed before Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) including on the transaction mentioned in the MOU found during search. We find that in PCIT Vs Mukesh Keshav Lal Patel [2020 (3) TMI 129 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] while relying on the decision of Vineeta Gupta [2014 (5) TMI 543 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that declaration made by another party before ITSC is not binding upon the assessee, therefore, no addition can be made in absence of independent material. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by ld CIT(A), which we affirm with our aforesaid observation. In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal of revenue is dismissed. Addition on substantive basis and on protective basis - CIT(A) was of the view that it is an undisputed fact that the documents relied upon for making additions were found from the third party. Such documents are not signed by any one, not in the writing of assessee, thus deleted both the additions - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the submissions of assessee that the Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of guess work. There is no direct evidence against the assessee to connect the assessee with the investment made for purchase of flat No. A-501 and G-901. We find that search party recorded statement of Aagam Vadecha on 30/09/2015 in post search proceedings and Aagam Vadecha has not identified the assessee. In the course of assessment, the assessee asked for cross examination of Aagam Vadecha but he neither attended the proceedings nor sent any reply on his behalf. No independent investigation was carried out by Investigation Wing or by the Assessing Officer about the investment in Enn Enn Corporation about the purchase of flat No. A-501 or G-901. There is no evidence on record that the assessee has not purchased any such flat hence there is no occasion for making such investment with Enn Enn Corporation. Thus, we do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of the ld CIT(A), which we affirm. In the result, ground No. 2&3 of the appeal is dismissed.
|