9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under section 148 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment and served notice upon assessee under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee is a Doctor by profession and derived income from Business and Profession and Income from Other Sources. The A.O. noted that during the course of search conducted upon AKN group of cases, a hard disc was found at the residential premises of Shri. Nareesh Gupta who is a deed writer and an advocate by profession. As per agreement to sell found in the said hard disc, Assessee and his Wife have given Rs. 1 Crore in cash to M/s. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. on account of purchase of a property at E-108, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi, which fact is mentioned in the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi in ITA.No.3249/Del./2015, Dated 16.05.2017 [PB-108]. He has, therefore, submitted that reopening of the assessment may be quashed and entire addition may be deleted which is without any basis. 4. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that agreement to sell though unsigned found during the course of search was electronic evidence and as such same is admissible IN evidence against the assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The department has provided copy of the reasons to the assessee for reopening of the assessment, copy of which is filed at Page-28 of the PB. The same reads as under : "An information with respect to Dr. Balraj Gupta and Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Om Prakash and Mrs. Madhu Gupta w/o Dr. Balraj Gupta were the equal share holder of the ownership of the said property at First Floor, at E-108, Greater Kailash Part 11, New Delhi in which Mrs. Madhu Gupta W/o Dr. Balraj Gupta, and Sh. Balraj Gupta S/o late Shri Om Prakash, hold 30% share each. Also, in the agreement to sell, provided by Central Circle-26, New Delhi, there were two payments by cheque on 22-07-2009 and 02-08-2009, falling in the F.Y. 2009-10. In the purchase deed executed on 26/08/2009, the payment details include three cheque payments dated 22-07-2009, 02-08-2009 and 26/08/2009, which are also in the duration of F.Y. 2009-10 (A.Y: 2010-11). The assessee had field return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 25-09-2010 declarin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Infrastructure Ltd., therefore, it has no evidentiary value and cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. Similarly, the case of M/s. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd., was reopened by the A.O. for assessment year under appeal i.e., 2010-2011, but, no adverse inference has been drawn against the said Company and no addition on account of any amount received from assessee have been made in the case of their assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act, Dated 29.02.2017. There is no other tangible material on record to justify if assessee has paid any cash amount to M/s. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd., on account of purchase of any property. Therefore, in the absence of any tangible material and in the absence of any legally enforceable agreement f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 40,00,000/- is taken in the return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, I have reason to belief that the assessee has escapement of capital gain amounting to Rs. 34,00,000/- which has not been disclosed in the turn of income and the provisions of section 147 of the Act are attracted in this case. In the light of the above facts, proposal is sent to the JCIT, Range 39, New Delhi for according approval for issue of notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in this case. Sd/- (Sobhana Rajan) Income-tax Officer, Ward 39 (1), New Delhi." 5. The AO in the reasons merely mentioned that information has been received that assessee entered into an agreement to sale of property in question for a consideration of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one can not come to the conclusion that the price mentioned in the sale deed is not correct. On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that on the basis of the photo copy of the receipt, prima facie case was made out for reopening of the assessment. Assessee did not raise objection to reassessment proceedings and that the photocopy of documents which is admissible as secondary evidence. 6. After considering rival submissions, it is clear that the revenue department was having only one photo copy of the bayana receipt and on that basis the reassessment of the assessee have been made. However in the reasons recorded, the AO has not explained the source of the information received for entering into an agreement to sell for a sum of Rs. 40 lacs a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
