TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein held AO was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A and authorities below ere 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 above issues, i.e. on validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A and the addition in question. The grounds involving the above issues are accordingly allowed - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 751/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2018 - Shri N. K. Saini And Ms Suchitra Kamble, JJ. Appellant by Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv Respondent by Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT(DR) ORDER Suchitra Kamble, This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 27/11/2014 passed by CIT(A)- XXVII, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 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 add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the Assessing Officer brought the balance amount of ₹ 60,223/- to tax. In the course of search proceedings u/s 132 in cases of AEZ group, an excel sheet in the form of hard disk was found at the corporate office of AEZ group at 301- 303, Bakshi House, Nehru Place, New Delhi which was seized and marked as annexure A-32. The file name of the hard disk was D.P.Correction Sheet.xls which contained me following details of sales status of Indirapuram Habitat Centre: Sales Status- Indrapuram Habitat Centre (Down payment) Sl No. Name of purchaser Super Are a Spft) Basic sale price Rs./Sq .ft) Achieved rate (Rs./sq .ft. Cheque (Rs.) Cash (Rs.) Total(Rs.) Cheque (Rs.) Cash (Rs.) Total (Rs.) Cheque (Rs.) Cash (Rs.) Total(Rs.) GROUND FLOOR 29. Subhash Sushila Lakhotia, Trust 500) 6881.766 920000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of CIT(A) dated 27/11/2014 and relates to Assessment Year 2006-07. The Ld. AR pointed out certain dates which are as under:- Date Event Remark if any 11.09.2006 Original Return of Income has been filed by the assessee. Processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 17.08.2011 A search and seizure action was conducted on the premises of AEZ group Alleged document showing investment of ₹ 25,20,884/- has been found in this search 10.02.2012 A search and seizure action in the case of the assessee was conducted where no incriminating document was found Submissions before the CIT(A) at Page No. 13 Para 27(b) of the Act. Finding of CIT(A) that no incriminating documents was found in the assessee search is at Page No-15. 30.09.2013 Notice u/s 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sees. The Ld. AR submitted that all these aspects have been considered by the Tribunal in its order dated 30.06.2016. The Ld. AR further submitted that order of the Tribunal has now been affirmed by the High Court in ITA no 60 of 2017 order dated 25.07.2017. The Ld. AR submitted that while deciding the case of Subhash Khattar, the Hon ble High Court decided the issue after framing the question of law. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Asha Rani Lakhotiya, which belongs to same group, following the verdict of Delhi High Court has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court and hence no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. 8. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), but could not controvert the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in case of Subhash Khattar ITA No. 60 of 2017 (Delhi High Court). 9. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. It is pertinent to note that in present case on 17.08.2011, a search and seizure action has undertaken in the case of AEZ group during this search it is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in absence of corroborative evidence in support, that the assessee had also paid the amount of ₹ 3,21,00,000/- in cash. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Prem Prakash Nagpal (Supra) wherein Assessing Officer had made certain additions u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of the documents found during search at a place of third party which indicated that assesseee 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 docuemtns 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 Cout. 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 addition, was not justified. Besides, we also fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
