TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court [ 2018 (8) TMI 1154 - SC ORDER ] . So, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A), present appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. - ITA No.7382/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 22-10-2020 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA For the Revenue : Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, ACIT, Central Circle 16, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue ) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the basis of seized document, Annexure A-1, Page 5, from the premises of Lalit Modi, an addition of ₹ 19,02,68,289/- was made for AY 2010-11 which was confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), however he has also enhanced the assessed income by ₹ 5,50,72,700/-. In AY 2010-11, ld. CIT (A) issued directions to the AO to assess a sum of ₹ 4 crores in the hands of assessee for AY 2009-10 on the basis of same seized document which was qua property purchased by the assessee in Vasant Square Mall on 13.05.2009 from Suncity Projects (P) Ltd. out of which ₹ 4 crores was allegedly received by the assessee in AY 2009-10. Consequently, AO made addition of ₹ 4 crores and framed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act at an incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue that the person searched Shri Lalit Modi had expressly disclaimed or disowned Annexure A1 as belonging to him. In view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case ITA No.3551 3343/De1/2013 329/Del/2014 Asstt.Year: 2010-1134 of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (supra) unless and until it is established that the document does not belong to the searched person, the provisions of section 153C of the Act do not get attracted because the language used by the legislature in section 153C of the Act mandates that where the AO is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong or belonged to a person other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urning the following findings :- 15. It requires to be first noted that the document relied upon by the Revenue (Annexure A-1 page 5) to sustain the additions made to the assessable income of the Respondent has not been shown to 'belong' to the Assessee. In arriving at this conclusion, the ITAT followed the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holding Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Del). Mr. Shivpuri on the other hand submitted that there have been subsequent decisions of the DBs of this Court which have explained the aforementioned decision and in particular the phrase belongs to ‟ occurring in Section 153C of the Act. He placed particular reliance on the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax- 8 v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the ITAT in the impugned order. Question No. 25 posed to Mr Modi and his answer thereto reads as under: Q.25. I am showing you page no. 5 to 8 of Annexure A- 1, please explain the contents. Ans: Pages no. 5 to 8 are rough planning on page 5 proposal from Vasant Square Mall for sale was received and the deal did not materialise through me. 18. The above statement was made in the course of the search. In the assessment proceedings in the case of Suncity Project Ltd. allegedly involving Mr. Lalit Modi, a specific question was put to him and his answer thereto was recorded on oath on 15th March, 2013 under Section 131 of the Act reads as under: Q.3. During the course of search proceedings at your residence at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to Smt. Vinita Chaurasia, the proposal was not acted upon, hence, no transaction took place on the basis of the said page seized at page No. 5 of Annexure A-1. Had the said proposal materialized, I would have earned brokerage income. Since no such transaction took place, no commission was earned by me. 19. What is evident from the above reply of Mr. Lalit Modi is that even according to him the document in question did not belong to the Assessee. He appears to suggest that the document was a proposal delivered at his residence by some other broker and which proposal remained with him before it could be forwarded to the Assessee. In the meanwhile, the search and seizure operation took place. 20. There is no material whatsoev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
