9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act, 1961. The appellant prays that the action of the AO in initiating the said proceedings suffers from legal infirmity and therefore the said proceedings require to be quashed. Ground No. 2: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 79,98,925/- on account of alleged undisclosed investments in Ambegaon, Jovan and Shindgaon lands u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 79,98,925/- may kindly he deleted." Ground No.1 2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has stated at bar that as per the instructions of his client he does not press ground No.1 of the appeal. The ground No.1 is therefore dismissed being not pressed. Ground No.2 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action was carried out on 05.03.2009 in the case of the Jai Corp. Group, its employees and close associates. During the search various documents relating to purchase of land by the group concerns of Jai Corporations were seized. In the documents relating to various individuals associated with Jai Corporations including the assessee, it was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lture. He has further submitted that none of the sellers have been examined in the matter to ascertain whether any amount has been paid to them in cash in spite of the fact that the assessee had specifically asked the AO vide letter dated 13.12.10 to examine the sellers if required. He has further relied upon the decision of the ITAT in the case of "Avkash Land Reality Pvt. Ltd. & others" wherein under the similar circumstances, the additions made by the Revenue Authorities have been deleted by the Tribunal. He has further relied upon another decision of the Tribunal in the case of "Jai Corp. Ltd." Dated 26.11.2014 to stress that the consideration for the purchase of the land was more than the rates of ready recknor of Stamp Duty Authorities, all the payments were made through cheque, and in the absence of any evidence that any payment was made in cash or unaccounted money has exchanged hands, the additions could not be made. He has further contended that the entire addition has been made merely on the basis of suspicion which was based on the strength of loose papers found during the search action, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. D.R. on the other has relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany .It is also not the case of the Revenue that Dilip Dherai was acting as agent of the assessee company. Merely on the strength of this admission, it cannot be said that the assessee has incurred certain expenditure over and above what has been recorded in its books of account. We find that the ultimate conclusions drawn by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have been reached merely on the entries found on loose sheet of papers for which Shri Dilip Dherai has stated that they are only estimats / budgetary figures. However, the allegations made by the lower authorities are not supported by actual cash passing hands. The entire additions are based on the seized documents and no other material has been adverted to and which could conclusively show that the huge amount of the magnitude mentioned in the seized documents travelled from, one side to the other. The Revenue authorities have not brought a single statement on record of the vendors of land in different villages. None of the seller has been examined to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that extra cash has actually changed hands. 24. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Brothers Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. In our considerate view, there being no evidence to support the Revenue's case that a huge figure, whatever be its quantum , over and above the figure booked in the records and accounts changed hands between the parties, no addition could therefore be made u/s. 69C of the Act to the income of the assessee. Considering the entire facts brought on record, we have no hesitation to hold that even on merits, no addition could be sustained. 26. Since we have allowed the issue in the case of the present assessee on both counts i.e. on legal issue and on merit and the issues involved in all other appeals of other assessees are similar and identical, though quantum may differ, for similar reasons, we quash the assessments and delete the additions on merit as well as on point of law in all other cases also." 7. A perusal of the above findings of the Tribunal in the case of related concerns of the assessees involving identical facts and issues reveals that the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the requirement of section 69C is that an expenditure has been found to have been incurred by an assessee in any financial year for which he gives no explanation about the source t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale agreements was much more than the value adopted by the Stamp Duty Authorities. There was no evidence that any extra cash other than the sale consideration as recorded in the deed had changed hands. No statement of the sellers of the land had been recorded. No other corroborative evidence has been produced on the file by the Revenue Authorities to substantiate their allegation. The addition in this case has been made on the basis of the entries in the loose paper found during the search action, which at the most can be considered to have raised a suspicion about the transfer of money other than the sale consideration, but the suspicion itself and solely cannot be held to be a justifiable ground for making the additions, especially in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Except the loose papers in question no evidence, what to say of any direct or corroborative evidence, even no circumstantial evidence has been detected or brought on record by the Revenue. Hence, the additions solely on the basis of suspicion, how strong it may be, in our view, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, the facts of the present case are identical to that of the other group concerns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the hearing of the appeal." Ground No.1 10. The ground No.1 is relating to the additions made on account of alleged undisclosed investments in purchase of land under section 69B of the Act. This ground is identical to that of ground No.2 in assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2006-07. In view of our findings given above while adjudicating the identical issue, this ground is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee and the additions made by the AO under section 69B of the Act are accordingly ordered to be deleted. Ground No.2, 3 & 4 11. Ground Nos.2, 3 & 4 are relating to the estimation of Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the vacant flats at Central Garden Complex. The assessee has claimed that the value of the same be taken as Rs.Nil. Whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO in assessing the ALV of the said flats at Rs. 15483852/- and thereafter assessment of the income under the head "Income from house property" at Rs. 10838696/-. The assessee being the owner of 20 vacant flats as detailed in the assessment order had offered annual letting value of flats as per Municipal Rateable value at Rs. 8,473/-. The AO, however, determined the same as per his estimation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
