Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (7) TMI 722

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of plot No. 3-8, Village Jharsently, District Faridabad (Haryana) as the sources of investment were not proved before the AO in spite of several opportunities afforded to the assessee." 3. The assessment in this case was reopened on the basis of following reasons recorded as mentioned in the assessment order : "On the basis of the information received from the Dy. CIT (Central), New Delhi CGO Complex, N.H. IV, Faridabad that the search and seizure operations were carried out by the Investigation Wing at the business and other premises of M/s Manav Rachna Group of companies on 4th Aug., 2005. During the search certain incriminating documents were seized which indicated that the assessee company purchased an industrial plot No. 3-8, Villa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e merits of the case. Learned CIT(A) held that reopening was justified. However, with regard to merits of the case, he held as under : "Perusal of seized documents as filed by appellant before AO and here shows that one big chunk of land has been sold by dividing it into smaller pieces by one M/s Indo American Electrical Ltd., Calcutta to various persons. The name of assessee has been mentioned at p. 31 of the paper book showing plot No. 'B-8' against the name of the assessee as buyer and the name of M/s Indo American Electrical Ltd. as seller and the sale amount has been mentioned at Rs. 8,00,000 when compared it with the registered sale deed (copy of which is submitted before me at paper book 16-24) showing that one plot has been purchas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se papers belong to whom." 4.1 Thereafter, the learned CIT(A) referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Pradeep Kumar Gupta [2008] 303 ITR 95 and referred that the primary burden of proof is upon the AO which he has not discharged with the help of cogent material. He held that except the documents which were discussed above, nothing else has been brought on record; nothing was coming out of these documents; nothing was clear as to what these documents are. He proceeded to hold that the addition of Rs. 60,36,000 was without any evidence and the same could not be sustained. 5. Against this order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tretch of imagination can be treated as conclusive proofs of on money transactions. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the documents being relied upon showed account as on 31st Oct., 2001, while as per the registered sale deed the plot was sold on 23rd May, 2002. Under the circumstances, these additions have been made on the basis of documents found during search at the place of a third party which at best only showed the tentative/projected purchase consideration. It is not the case that the circle rate or the value as per stamp registration authorities of the impugned property is more than what has been disclosed. It is also not the case that unaccounted cash has been found to be paid by the assessee or received by the seller. There is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of Revenue to prove the same and as clearly found by us above the Revenue has failed to do so the same. 6.6 Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedents, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Assessee's C.O. No. 43/Del/2010 8. In the cross-objection the assessee has objected the validity of reopening, confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Learned counsel of the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing this ground. Accordingly, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed.
Ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates