9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69 r.w.s 115 BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act']. 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and relevant documentary evidences brought on record in the form of Paper Book in light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules duly considered. 4. The underlying facts in issue are that on 17.10.2016, a survey u/s 133A of the Act had been conducted at the premises of M/s Boss Gears Ltd. wherein Annexure A-1 to Annexure - A8 had been found and impounded. The impounding order dated 17.10.2016 is exhibited at page 32 of the paper book titled "Synopsis in Brief". 5. At the time of survey, statement of Shri Digvijay Kapuria, CEO of M/s Boss Gears Ltd has also been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had specifically replied on 22.11.2018 that the purchase price of Rs.18.22crores, as agreed in the MOU was on the assurance from M/s Boss Gears Ltd. that the said land was free from all sorts of encumbrances, attachments, mortgages, liens, etc. whereas the said land has outstanding dues to the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. It was further found that the seller M/s Boss Gears Ltd. also failed to fulfill the other conditions of the MOU like restoration of status of the land to its original status, removal of factory premises under operation and obtaining of NOC from the department for transfer of the said land. 10. All these reasons given by the assessee were dismissed by the Assessing Officer who conclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him and he had no knowledge of the contents of this document and since his father had signed the document, he also signed the same. 16. Shri Kapuria, however, once again stated that to the best of his knowledge, sale consideration was Rs.9 crores. 17. However, we find that though the statement of Shri Yuvraj was recorded but no statement of Shri Digvijay was recorded who also happens to be one of the signatory to the MOU. In our considered opinion, the initial burden is on the revenue to establish that the assessee had made investment of the sum alleged to have been invested and no such evidence has been brought on record by the revenue to establish that the assessee has made investment of Rs.18,22,50,000/- and on the contrary, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operations conducted at the business premises of M/s Boss Gears Ltd. 20. On identical set of facts, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 has held as under: "3. On the basis of the MOUs, the Assessing Officer issued a questionnaire to Ravi Talwar and Madhu Talwar regarding receipt of the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs each but while they both admitted having signed the MOUs, they denied having received any amount. The Assessing Officer concluded that the denials by the assessed of having made payments and of Ravi Talwar and Madhu Talwar of having received the amounts was only to escape payment of tax liabilities. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs was added in the hands of the assessed under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been held as under: "5. After considering the evidence and on the basis of the assessment order passed against Pasha, the case of the assessee that the property was purchased at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per cent has been accepted. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeals. The sale deed will show that the price was for Rs. 8,000 per cent when the agreement dated March 1, 1983, shows that the parties agreed to purchase the property at Rs. 12,951 per cent. A receipt is also relied on in the form of a letter dated April 2, 1983, to show that the property was agreed to be purchased at Rs. 12,951 per cent. When the document shows a fixed price, there will be a presumption that it is the correct price agreed upon by the parties. It is true that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts in totality, we are of the considered view that it is not the case where during the course of search the assessee has been found to have made any investment but it is a case that as a result of documents found and impounded at the time of survey on M/s Boss Gears Ltd. the impugned addition has been made. 23. It is also an undeniable fact that the seller has admitted to have received Rs.9.47 crores as against Rs.18.22crores alleged by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the burden is squarely upon the revenue to prove that the actual transaction was of Rs.18.22 crores, which it has grossly failed to establish, and most importantly, assessment order of the seller M/s Boss Gears Ltd., mentioned elsewhere, and exhibited at page 609 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
