TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion could be drawn that the same pertain to the assessee, more so, when the seized documents nowhere refer to the assessee. Having regard to the material on record, this court does not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record - No substantial question of law warranting interference. - Decided against revenue. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1372 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2019 - MR HARSHA DEVANI AND DR A. P. THAKER, JJ. For The Appellant : MR MR BHATT, SR. advocate with MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. In this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome at ₹ 2,07,81,390/- by making addition on account of unexplained cash payment to the seller of the immovable property. 3.1 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide order dated 13.9.2013, allowed the appeal. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, but did not succeed. 4. Mr. M. R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order passed by the Tribunal by submitting that in this case, the seized documents are not unreliable in nature, but are in fact a recording in the form of ledger account of the assessee, and that the entries recorded in it are sufficient enough to fasten the liability on the head of the person against whom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so perused the record of the case. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) reveals that he, after appreciating the material on record, has found that in the present case, the document has been seized from the premises of a third person and it is not established that it is written by the assessee. The transaction in the document is not self-speaking and that the allegation that cash has been paid is not coming out from the document. Moreover, the document does not contain the name of the assessee, nor does it contain the signature of either of the parties of the assessee firm or of the person searched upon, namely Shri Paresh B. Patel. Moreover, the word cash is nowhere mentioned on the seized document. The Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ponse to the said notice, assessee stated that We have purchased such land at Jantri Price during the financial year 2006-07. There was no cash rate of ₹ 9,00,000/- per Vigha at which transaction for purchase of land was executed by other purchaser during the same tenure and denied that no cash payment have been made and same paper is part of assessment order. This paper is in Gujarati language and does not contain any signature and date and word cash is nowhere mentioned on this seized document. In the decision of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla, Hon ble Supreme Court has held that it is not permissible to assess the undisclosed income in the absence of any other evidence on arbitrary basis and loose sheets cannot be considered as a conclusive e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
