TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of making charges against the person whose name noted on sheet without corroborating the same The admission made by the buyer of the property before the Settlement Commission does not establish the fact that the assessee has received unaccounted consideration. Thus, we are not convinced with the findings of the authority below. Hence, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 1818/AHD/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2022 - SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Shailesh J. Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Ahmedabad, dated 31/10/2019 arising in the matter of Assessment Order passed under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the Act ) relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The assessee has raised the modified grounds of appeal: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) and the Assessing officer have erred in not bringing on record any evidence to prove that the appellant has actually received the said cash which in fact is neither as found by the appellant nor found invested any were by the appellant. 9. That, since the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the above issues suffers from illegality , and infirmity and is devoid of any merit, the impugned addition sustained by the Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) ought to be quashed and your assessee be given such relief as prayed for. 10 That, the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds. 3. The assessee has raised as many as 10 grounds of appeal but the issue revolves to the addition made by the AO for Rs. 1,96,37,500/- representing the undisclosed sale consideration against the sale of property. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of TAFE make Tractors Spare Parts. There was a survey operation at the business premises of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was found as per which sale consideration was shown at Rs.5,47,37,500/-. The appellant has shown sale consideration of Rs.3,51,00,000/-. M/s. Ohm Developers, before Setllement Commission, has accepted that on-money of Rs.l,96,37 500/- was paid in cash and has admitted as its income. The Assessing Officer fias reopened the assessment and made the addition of on-money. The appellant has contended that it has entered into an agreement to sell in respect of said property on 26/3/2010 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,51,00,000/- and amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was received and the property was handed over. The appellant has contended that though property was registered on 6/7 2015, the sale price of the property should be taken as stamp duty value prevailing on 26/3/2010 and not that as the draft sale deed dated August 2013. The appellant also contended that draft sale deed unsigned and therefore, cannot be relied upon. It is seen that the appellant has shown the sale of property as per sale deed registered on 6/7/2015 in the return of income. The draft sale deed which was found during course of survey at the premises of M/s. Ohm Developers reveals that the property was to be sold fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the assessee and her husband. They were not privy to the settlement application filed on behalf of sellers. In any event, what the Settlement Commission has said in the order in respect of sellers is that as per their calculations the premium amount came to Rs 13.3 crores but since they had declared more than that, the disclosure needed no disturbance. 9.2 We are also of the view that draft sale deed in the absence of other corroborative materials cannot substitute the evidence. The Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (A registered society) vs. Union of India reported in 77 taxmann.com 245, held that noting on loose sheet/diary does carry any evidentiary value under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, the relevant extract reads as under: Loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being of no evidentiary value. The entire prosecution based upon such entries which led to the investigation was quashed by this Court. 9.3 We also find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. VC Shukla [1998] (3) SCC 410 held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
