TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter. It may also be noted here that no evidence has been brought on record as to whether assessee had paid any on money to the seller. The seized paper have not been found and recovered from the possession of the assessee. These are computerised sheets and have not been signed by the assessee. The seized papers were not in the name of the assessee. Therefore, how these are admissible against the assessee in evidence has not been explained by the Revenue department. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore, correctly held that even addition on merit is wholly unjustified. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. No. 579/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2017 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Amit Arora Shri Vishal Misra, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Smt. Charanjeet Kaur w/o. Shri N.P. Singh. Agreement for sale was executed at an amount of ₹ 54,11,400 each and earnest money of ₹ 5 lakhs had been paid by assessee for F-4 and ₹ 5 lakhs by Smt. Charanjeet Kaur for F-5. Since F-4 and F-5 had been purchased by assessee and another member of his family so the accounts of these two units had been given together. The A.O. placed a scanned copy of the documents on record and pointed out that on page No.73 for units F-4 5, sale price as per registered documents, a figure of 108.23 is written under this head. It was explained that this figure was actually an amount of ₹ 108.23 lakhs @ 7500 per sq. feet super area and it completely tallied with the amount of sale considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the same page. The A.O. however, did not accept the contention of assessee and made addition of ₹ 33,50,000 on account of unexplained investment in property purchased in Unit F-4, in cross road mall, Dehradun. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) and detailed submissions along with case law are reproduced in the appellate order. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the material on record, in the light of seized paper which is scanned in the assessment order found that transaction on the loose sheets are not recorded in the name of the assessee but in the name of some Rajan . Therefore, nothing emerges from the loose sheets that could give the A.O. reason to believe that income has escaped assessment in the hands of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property No.F-11 purchased by the assessee, the name of some Nautiyal has been mentioned. The department has not connected the assessee with the alleged person Nautiyal. In the absence of any evidence or material on record as to how the assessee is connected with the alleged Nautiyal, it is difficult to believe that assessee paid any on money to the seller. It therefore, appears that the A.O. without applying his mind to the information provided to him reopened the assessment merely on suspicion. Ld. CIT(A) on proper appreciation of material on record, correctly quashed the reopening of the assessment in the matter. It may also be noted here that no evidence has been brought on record as to whether assessee had paid any on money to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
