TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd direct the Assessing Officer to delete the said addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.423/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2018 - SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. P.C. Yadav, Adv. For The Respondent : Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT(DR) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 27/11/2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT-(A) ] for assessment year 2006-07 in quantum assessment proceedings, raising following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹ 25,20,884/- as income from undisclosed sources which was added by the ACIT, Central Circle-9, New Delhi in as much as the entire addition is unwarranted, based on surmises and conjectures, without any basis, illegal and thus, requires to be deleted in toto. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the addition of ₹ 25,20,884/- has been made without any positive 8s cogent evidence and rather on irrelevant facts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20,884/- as made out by the assessee out of undisclosed income and accordingly, he made the addition. Before the Ld. CIT-(A), the assessee made detailed submissions contesting the addition both on the ground of the law as well as on the facts. The concluding para of the submission of the assessee is reproduced as under: 2.1 In conclusion, we would like to submit as under:- ( a) We have not invested any cash amount in respect of booking of ₹ 500/- sq. feet space at Indirapuram Habitat Centre. ( b) No papers or documents evidencing cash payment by us has been found during the course of extensive search at our premises. ( c) The property not yet ready, original amount only refunded by Developer and original booking cancelled. ( d) Affidavit is being filed by us to reconfirm that no cash payment has been made by us for the above space. ( e) No amount can be deemed to be treated as our income merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures and presumptions. 2.2 The Ld. CIT-(A) observed that post dated cheques were found the residential premises of the Lakhotia family ( party related to the assessee), and those cheques are in agreement with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions, the Ld. counsel argued that issue in dispute is covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court (supra) and, thus, order of the Ld. CIT-(A) might be set-aside. 5. The Ld. CIT(DR), on the other hand, submitted that during search, several post dated cheques or their details related to investments by Lakhotia family, i.e., the family controlling the assessee AOP, were found and seized. He referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukundray K. Shah, reported in 290 ITR 433, wherein it was held that addition could be made in block assessment, even if, addition arise out of enquiry related to source of investment in disclosed investment, if details of such disclosed investment were found during search. 6. Without prejudice to above submission, the Ld. CIT(DR) also submitted that on the basis of the evidence seized during search dated 17/08/2011 in the case of AEZ group, the Department could have issued notice under section 148 of the Act as the time limit was available till 31/03/2003. According to him, this case is similar to cases where notice under section 153A is issued before the expiry of time limit to issue under section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Prem Prakash Nagpal (supra) wherein Assessing Officer had made certain additions under sec. 69 of the Act on the basis of the documents found during search at a place of third party which indicated that assessee had purchased a plot by paying consideration 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. Besides, we also find substance in the contention of the Learned AR that assessment under sec. 153 A of the Act in absence of incr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
