TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pening of assessments. At the time of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee did not press grounds relating to re-opening of assessment and, therefore, the same are dismissed, as not pressed. 3. The remaining issue which is contained in ground No. 3 to 3.8 relates to confirming the addition of ₹ 7,42,000/- in AY 2002-03 and ₹ 49,28,000/- on account of un-explained investment in plot No. B-5 in assessment year 2002-03 and B-7 in assessment year 2003-04 at Village Jharsently, Distt. Faridabad, based on material seized from the premises of Shri Navneet Jhamb. The facts of the case stated in brief are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 4/08/2005 on Manav Rachna Group at Faridabad. During the course of searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (Appeals) confirmed the additions in both the years. For sake of convenience the decision of ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2002-03 is reproduced as under: 6.3 On the other grounds of appeal taken in form No. 35, which were duly elaborated in submissions made before me from time to time, I hold as under :- 6.3.1 The appellant has not denied the fact that the impugned transaction of purchase of plot at B-5, Village Jharsentli, Distt. Faridabad, which was purchased by him from M/s. Indo American Electicals Ltd. through Shri Manmohan Singh. However, it was argued that he was not aware of the business relationship between Shri Manmohan Singh and Shri Navneet Jhamb, from whose residential premises, the relevant documents (labeled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eticulously provides total sale price of each plot that was sold and its bifurcation into cash and cheque components, the preponderance of the probabilities is strongly in favour of the presumption that these figures are also correct and reliable. Therefore, the contention that such a document was a dumb document is not factually correct as the various linkages emanating from this document are verifiable and not denied by the appellant at any stage. Moreover, Shri Jhamb was an important related party who facilitated the sale of the property for Shri Manmohan Singh at Village Jharsentli, Faridabad in various ways and had even served as a witness for sale of another property to the appellant from the same seller out of the same prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough it was seizxed from a third party, the third party was not completely unrelated in the transaction and the facts and circumstances clearly show the existence of close business relationship between the seller and Shri Jhamb. In view of the same, the learned AO was justified in taking the figure relating to cash component of the above tgransaction, based on the above referred document at ₹ 7,82,000/-, which was met by the appellant outside the books and from undisclosed sources. In view of the above, the addition made by the assessing officer to the income of the appellant is sustained. 5. Before us at the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench B in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been claimed that certain incriminating documents were seized 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 ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this regard is not sustainable. 6.3 In this regard, we place reliance upon the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of K. P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another 131 ITR 597 (SC), wherein it has been held that the burden of proving is that of Revenue when there is allegation of understatement on concealment in the consideration shown. 6.4 We also place reliance upon the judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram in (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) in which allegations of on money transaction on the basis of nonconvincing loose sheets found during the course of search and conflicting statement of the seller, was deleted by the tribunal (to which, one of us the Accountant Member was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
