TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma For the Respondent : Salil Aggarwal and Prakash Kumar JUDGMENT 1. The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) dated 5.8.2011. It is urged that the direction made by the impugned order to delete the sums of ₹ 7,82,000/- and ₹ 49,28,000/-, brought to tax under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is erroneous. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessment was reopened, upon information allegedly received in regard to the undisclosed income, in the hands of the present assessee. This pertains specifically to two items of properties purchased by it in 2001 and 2002 in District Faridabad. The assessee objected to reopening of the assessment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of ITAT was followed by IT AT, Delhi Bench 'C in the case of DOT vs. M/s. Indication Instruments Ltd. in ITA No. 3513 (Delhi) of 2010 for assessment year 2002-03 dated 28.09.2010. It was submitted that on identical facts ITAT, Delhi Bench dismissed the Revenue's appeal. On the other hand, the Id. Sr. DR supported the order of the Id. CTT (Appeals). 6. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. We find that the issue involved in both the appeals is identical to the issue involved in the case of DCIT v. M/s. Indication Instruments Ltd. (supra) wherein ITAT, Delhi Bench 'C decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- 5. We have heard both the counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re in the handwriting of the assessee or the seller or were seized from the premises of seller and purchaser. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has brought out various discrepancies in the seized documents relied upon by the revenue and striking feature of these anomalies is that-in the seized documents, it has been mentioned that the impugned plot was not sold. Thus, the working and the figures mentioned therein can at best be said to be tentative or expected amount. This by no stretch 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 31.10.2001, while as per the registered sale deed the plot was sold on 23.5.2002. U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.5 We also find that in the grounds of appeal the revenue has urged that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 60,36,000/- paid in cash as the source of investment were not proved before the Assessing Officer in spite of several opportunities afforded to the assessee. In our opinion, this ground itself is misconceived, inasmuch as the question of proving the source of investment will arise only when the investment is conclusively proved. We have already found above that the claim of on money transactions has not at all proved in this case. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions above, the onus is that of revenue to prove the same and as clearly found by us above the revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
