TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessee is appearing in the said hard disc and amongst other investors are investor Shri I.E. Soomar appearing in the said hard disc has admitted payment of cash amount, cannot be a basis for arriving at a definite conclusion, in absence of corroborative evidence in support, that the assessee had also paid the amount of ₹ 3,21,00,000 in cash. Assessing Officer was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 153A and authorities below were also not justified in making and sustaining the addition in question merely on the basis of a hard disc found during the course of search at the premises of Aerens Group without any corroborative evidence in support. We thus hold that the assessee/appellant succeeds on both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 3,21,00,000 as undisclosed investment in the Indrapuram Habitat Centre as during the course of search proceedings in the premises of Aerens group, a hard disc was found and seized marked as Annexure A-32 wherein details of sales status of Indrapuram Habitat Centre were found showing the name of assessee at Sr. No. 32. The said hard disc was in by the name of the file as DP Correction Sheet-xls . In the detail given against the name of the assessee, total sale consideration of the property was shown at ₹ 6,21,00,000 consisting payment through cheque at ₹ 3,00,00,900 and ₹ 3,21,00,000 in cash. The dispute is regarding payment in cash, denined by the assessee. The authorities bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheque payment only. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has also erred in holding that ₹ 100 stamp paper of agreement dated 10.10.2005 had been tempered with and erased with fluid to mention date as 10.10.2005 that too without cross verifying with the assessee or giving any opportunity to the assessee to explain. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has also erred in holding that there is discrepancy in number and dates of cheques of ₹ 3,00,00,000 given by the assessee to the builder without cross verifying with the assessee or giving any opportunity to the assessee to explain. The Learned AR submitted that the Learned CIT(Appeals) is also not correct in saying that memorandum of understanding (MOU) dated 20.9.2005 was after thought story, weaved at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 20,41,810 vide order dated 13.11.2007 and thus no assessment was pending on the date of search i.e. 10.02.2012 at the premises of the assessee. The Learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Sanjay Agarwal vs. DCIT (2014) 47 Taxmann.com 210 (Del.); ii) Parivar Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 41 Taxmann.com 485 (Del); iii) Atul Barut Vs. DCIT 44 Taxmann.com 167 (Mum.); iv) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla ITA No. 707, 709 713 of 2014 judgment dated 08.08.2015 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Nagpal (2013) Taxmann.com 353 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Alpha Impex Pvt. Ltd. 45 Taxmann.com 2015 (Bom); vii) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del.); etc. 6. The Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand tried to justify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is written on subsequent date the assessee has reiterated that he had paid amount of ₹ 3 crores vide cheque dated 20.9.2005 to the Aerens Group. He submitted further that no sale deed has been executed or registered till date and hence as per the practice prevailed in the market of property dealings, cash amount, if any, out of the agreed amount of consideration is paid during the course of registration only. 8. Considering the above submissions, we find that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has upheld the addition in question mainly on the basis of (i) the details written on the hard disc found during the course of search from the premises Aerens Group, wherein payment through cheque and cash have been mentioned against the name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in cash, it was held by the Hon ble High Court that the Assessing Officer could not prove by evidence that said documents belonged to the assessee and that any on money transaction had taken place. The documents at the best only showed tentative/projected purchase consideration held the Hon'ble High Court. Again, in the case of CIT vs. Alpha Impact Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been pleased to hold that addition to assessee s income in respect of additional sales consideration received in sale of land merely on the basis of Email recovered during the course of search action at the premises of another person and there being no independent material available supporting such additions, was not justified. Beside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
