TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (i) in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act even though there were was no valid reason recorded by the Assessing Officer, leading to the belief that the income has escaped assessment. The proceedings so initiated are without jurisdiction and bad in law; (ii) in framing the assessment u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act in a gross violation of principles of natural justice, rendering the assessment void ab initio. The Assessing Officer has selectively relied on the part of the statement without making available a copy of the whole statement to the appellant; (iii) in recording a finding based on surmises and conjectures that the assessee had paid ₹ 41,00,000/- in cash for purchasing plot and thereby making an addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residence of Sh. Navneet Jhanb is alleged to show that the land was sub divided into industrial plots and was sold at a cash premium over and above ₹ 1.5 crores. From the documents and seized, the Assessing Officer inferred that the assessee has purchased plot no. A-8, measuring 6736 sqyds. for the total consideration of ₹ 60,40,800/-, out of which a sum of ₹ 19,80,000/- has been paid by the cheque and the remaining amount of ₹ 41,0,400/- has been paid by way of cash. The said entries have been found recorded on page 61 of Annexure A-1 seized from the residence of Sh. Navneet Jhanb. 5. The assessee Director, Shri Ansu Mittal, was asked to make explanation in this regard. Shri Ansu Mittal replied that the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade on the basis of same seized documents in the case of Dua Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4802/Del/2009 for the asstt. year 2003-04 vide order dated 16.7.2010 and addition in the case of M/s Indication Instruments Ltd. in ITA No. 3513/Del/2010 for asstt. year 2002-03 vide order dated 28.9.2010 has been deleted by the tribunal. He further pointed out that Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in I.T.A. No. 603/2011 in the case of CIT vs. Indication Instruments Ltd. and in ITA No. 570/2012 in the case of CIT vs. Prem Prakash Nagpal vide order dated 8.10.2012 has considered the above mentioned decision of the tribunal. The Hon ble High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in this regard. In these circumstances, Ld. Counsel o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee s and that on money transaction has been taken place. He has simply relied upon the reasons recorded without showing any application of mind on his part. 6.2 In this regard we note that it is also not the case that the seller has made any statement or had accepted the receipt of on money i.e. consideration over and above that disclosed. It is also not the case that the seized documents were in the handwriting of the assessee or the seller or were seized from the premises of seller and purchaser. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has brought out various discrepancies in the seized documents relied upon by the revenue and striking feature of these anomalies is that in the seized documents, it has been mentioned that the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 49 (SC) in which allegations of on money transaction on the basis of non-convincing loose sheets found during the course of search and conflicting statement of the seller, was deleted by the tribunal (to which, one of us the Accountant Member was the party) and the same was affirmed by the Hon ble High Court and Hon ble Apex Court. 11. We find that in the case of M/s Indication Instruments Ltd. (supra), the tribunal has observed that since the facts and documents in the present case were same as referred in the above tribunal decision, the revenue allegation of money transaction was dismissed. The above decision was subject matter of an appeal before the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITA No. 603/2011 in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an not be treated as a conclusive proof. It is also not the case that on money transaction is proved on the basis of the registered sale deed. It is also not the case that circle rate or the value of the stamp duty of the impugned property is more than what has been disclosed. It is also not the case of that unaccounted cash have been found and to be paid by the assessee and received by the seller. In these circumstances, ratio from the Hon ble Apex Court from the decision of the KP Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) and also from the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. PV Kalyansundaram in 294 ITR 49 (SC) are applicable. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedents as above, we set aside the orders of the authorities below an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
