TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes from the common order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-12, Pune dated 27.06.2017 for the assessment years 2014-15 2011-12 to 2014-15 respectively as per the grounds of appeal on record. First, we would take up assessee s appeal in IT(SS)A No.64/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 for adjudication. IT(SS)A No.64/PUN/2017 ( By Assessee) Assessment year 2014-15 2. In IT(SS)A No.64/PUN/2017, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the proceeding under s. 153A of the IT Act, 1961 is not legal and is void ab initio and the impugned assessment u/s.153A r/w.143(3) of the Incometax Act, 1961 is liable to be annulled as department has not carried out search operations over the assessee at its business place at Plot No. 25, Tulsi Villa, Purnavad Nagar, Nr. Akashwani Tower, Off Gangapur Road, Nashik 422 013. Therefore, it is prayed to annul the assessment order, passed u/s 153A in the case of appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of legally untenable proceedings u/s 153A and in issuing legally untenable Notice u/s 153A in absence of any incriminating materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere cannot be any addition on mere statement given by the third party. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Kalyanasundaram, 294 ITR 49(SC) in the identical set of facts has held that in absence of any corroborative evidences, no addition can be made just based on the statement of third party. The relevant portion of the Tribunal s order is extracted herein below for the sake of completeness: 35. Further, we notice that both Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) misdirected themselves by applying presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act. The provision of section 132(4A) incorporates the rule of evidence relating to material found during course of search. On plain reading of said provision, it is evident that it has application in the case of searched person, in whose hands the material was found and seized. The presumption envisaged under said provision cannot be extended to assessment of third party. The CBDT also recognized the principle that no addition can be made on mere statement made u/s 132(4) without bringing any corroborative evidence. The CBDT Circular reads as under :- Admissions of undisclosed income under coercion/pressure during search/survey - Insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in. 38. In the light of the above facts and legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the Department had failed to establish that the appellant had paid any on-money over and above stated consideration of the sale deed to the vendors of the property at the time of purchase of Savargaon land. Therefore, no addition can be made on the mere statement given by the third party. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities are reversed, we direct Assessing Officer to delete addition of ₹ 2,58,20,476/- for the assessment year under consideration. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the amount involved also is same for this year also. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 6. In view of the above discussion, respectfully following the Tribunal s order in assessee s own case for the same parity of reasoning, we allow the appeal of the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.64/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 is allowed. IT(SS)A Nos. 70 72/ PUN/2017 ( By Revenue) Assessment Years : 2011-12 2013-14 8. The Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,56,93,324/ - made by the AO for A.Y.2012-13 in the case of the assessee without appreciating the facts that the addition made by the AO are based on the strong corroborative evidences in the form of the seized materials with logical and justifiable reasons to arrive at the addition of ₹ 1,56,93,324/ - pertaining to the assessee in the A.Y.2012-13 out of the total undisclosed cash transaction worked out at ₹ 65,21,25,992/- in respect of the land dealing of the Savargaon plots of land by Thakker Group. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the working of addition made by the AO on the basis of his findings that the members of Kokani family involved in sale transaction of Savargaon land have received 50% consideration in cheque and 50% in cash showing unaccounted cash amount of ₹ 65,21,25,992/- which is including the amount of ₹ 11,94,19,700/- declared by the Kokani Group initially in the statement u/s 132(4) in the search action on the premises of Kokani Group. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 14. In IT(SS)A No.73/PU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of on money consideration at the time of purchase of land by the respondent assessee and its group companies. Therefore, it can be said that the Assessing Officer had failed to bring on record any reliable evidence to prove that the respondent assessee had made investment in purchase of lands over and above the stated consideration. Therefore, we do not see any perversity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition based on the seized material. The findings given by us in relation to the appeal filed by the assessee for the same year also equally holds good in respect of present appeal and therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and we dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 16. The Ld. DR fairly submitted that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee. 17. Considering the same parity of reasoning, we dismiss both the appeals filed by the Revenue. 18. In the result, appeals of the Revenue in IT(SS)A No.71/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13 and IT(SS)A No.73/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 are dismissed. 19. In the combined result, appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
