TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in the decision of P.V. Kalyanasundaram [ 2007 (9) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT] the onus is that of revenue to prove the same and as clearly found by us above the revenue has failed to do so the same. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. In the cross objection the assessee has objected the validity of reopening, confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A). Ld. 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. - SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant BY : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent BY : Sh. LKS Dahiya, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee emanate out of orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 6.5.2010 pertaining to assessment year 2002-03. 2. The issue raised is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer found that there was also working of interest to the extent of ₹ 8,45,000/- on the seized documents. Assessee submitted that the notings on loose sheets are mere projection and not actual. Assessing Officer did not accept these submissions and added a sum of ₹ 12,77,200/- as payment of the undisclosed income. 3.1 Further on the basis of notings of loose sheets Assessing Officer has added ₹ 10,00,000/- received interest on the payments made as income of the assessee. 3.2 Upon assessee s appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) elaborately considered the issue. 3.3 As regards the issue of addition of ₹ 46,72,800/-, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held as under:- Thus, the whole situation can be summarized like this:- 1. No document indicating any payment outside the books much less the payment as mentioned by Assessing Officer in the assessment order was found from the possession of the assessee. 2. No such document as indicated above was found from the possession of seller. 3. The document was found from the possession of one Mr. Navneet Jhamb and he has clearly denied that any content of the document suggest any cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/-. But Assessing Officer has not responded to the request of the appellant. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and settled position of law, I have no option but to hold that addition of ₹ 46,72,800/- is without any evidence and the same cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is directed to be deleted. 3.4 As regards the issue of addition of ₹ 12,77,000/- and ₹ 10,00,000/-, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held as under:- I have gone through the appellant s submissions, assessment order and the material on record. It is noticed that in the said document (i.e. page 61 of Annexure A-1), it has been mentioned as follows:- 1. There is no mention of the name of the assessee anywhere on the scribbling which is the sole basis of making the addition by Assessing Officer. 2. It is nowhere coming out that the assessee has given any loan to the writer of this document. Rather from the rough calculations, at the best an inference could be drawn that the writer of this document has made such planning to pay out some amount on account of principle since the estimated amount of profit has been reduced by the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d which indicated that the assessee company purchased a plot. The plot had been said to be registered for ₹ 1320521/- and the documents seized indicated that assessee has invested ₹ 60,36,000/- in cash for purchase the said land. 6.1 We find that that the Assessing Officer has not brought even a single word regarding the nature of document and how he has concluded that they belong to the assessee s and that on money transaction has been taken place. He has simply relied upon the reasons recorded without showing any application of mind on his part. 6.2 In this regard we note that it is also not the case that the seller has made any statement or had accepted the receipt of on money i.e. consideration over and above that disclosed. It is also not the case that the seized documents were 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 failed to do so the same. 6.6 Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedents, we uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. 6. Since the facts and documents in the present case are same as referred in above tribunal decision, which both the counsels have fairly agreed to, adhering to the doctrine of staire decises, we uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. ns in the pre 7. In the cross objection the assessee has objected the validity of reopening, confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Ld. 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. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/09/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
