TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted and taken care with relation to the search person and the parties related to sale and purchase of land. But the seller of the land confirmed the fact of the assessee and submitted the affidavit before the authority. The ld. Counsel has submitted the catena of judgment in favour of the assessee, considering the ratio decidendi of the judgment. The addition made by the ld. AO is duly set aside the addition amount addition is quashed. Ground No. 3 and 4 of the assessee are allowed. - I.T.A. No.717/Asr/2019 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2022 - Dr. M. L. Meena, Accountant Member And Sh. Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr.DR ORDER PER: ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Bathinda, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal No.555/2018-19, date of order 17.09.2019, the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2011-12.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward II (4), Abohar, (in brevity the AO) order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in APB page no. 1 . The ld. Counsel pointed out that the reasons recorded by the ld. AO are erroneous and liable to be rejected. 3.1 In his argument the recorded reasons are submitted in APB page nos. 4 to 5 . The PAN No. which is mentioned by the ld. AO is CXDPS0488R whereas the corrected PAN No. of the assessee is CXIPS0348Q. According to the ld. Counsel the entire recorded reason is erroneous and also the ld. AO mentioned that the assessee has not filed his return for this assessment year under consideration. But return was already filed so the reopening was made on basis of entirely wrong facts. In this respect the ld. Counsel relied on the judgment of following Courts and ITAT which are as follows: i. Monika Rani vs. The Income Tax Officer , ITA No.582/Chd/2019 (Chd. Trib.) ii. Gaurav Joshi vs. The Income Tax Officer, 55 CCH 83 (JAL Trib.) iii. Sagar Enterprises vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax , 257 ITR 335 (Guj. HC). iv. Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust vs. ITO , 63 taxmann.com 112 (Chd.-Trib.). v. Zauri Foods and Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT , 408 ITR 0279 (Bom-HC). vi. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Light Carts Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- respectively. The assessee is only facilitated the transaction as the broker and made the transaction on behalf of the parties. The ld. Counsel in this point, first mention in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which is reproduced as below: The remand report was forwarded to the assessee for his comments which were received vide letter dated 16.09.2019. In the rejoinder it was stated that the Assessing Officer has stated that the payments of Rs. 16,03,000/-were made to M/s Surinder Sat Agro Foods by Sh. Fauja Singh and Sh. Sher Singh MP, whereas as per books shows that Sh. Fauja Singh and MP Sh. Sher Singh (Kaku Singh) is debited in the books of M/s Sat Surinder Agro Foods as per the books shown in the order. So the payments are made by the owner of M/s Sat Surinder Agro to M/s Fauja Singh and MP Sher Singh on behalf of Sh. Kaku Singh. The name of Sh. Kaku Singh is clearly written in the books. Therefore, the appellant had submitted that the registries shows that the owner of M/s Sat Surinder Agro have paid this amount to Sh. Kaku Singh for sale of land were presented before the ITO and he assured to admit it at the time of order. That Sh. Kaku Singh had sold his propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettled issue that the seized papers seized from the premises of Jai Corp Group and others cannot be relied upon for making additions in the hands of the land aggregators whose names appeared in the said documents. It is not the case of the Revenue that the judgments/decisions deliveredin the cases of appeals involving M/s. Arpit Land Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd. and Harsha Land Private Limited (supra) etc. do not relate to such land aggregators. These names also appeared in the said seized papers along with the name of the assessee. On similar facts, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arpit Land Pvt. Ltd., as well as in the case of M/s. Ambit Reality Pvt. Ltd., held that the said seized documents cannot be held to be belonging to the assessee. Considering the above binding decisions of Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the ground No.2 raised by the assessee is to be allowed on technical grounds. Similarly Reliance is also being placed upon the following Judgments wherein similar issue has been decided by the various Hon'ble Courts: a) CIT vs Arpit Land P Ltd. 78 taxmann.com 300 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises of the third party, in the absence of cross examination of such party based on which the addition has been made cannot be held to be sustainable in the eyes of the law. - Decided in favour of assessee. j) PRARTHANA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2001) 118 TAXMAN 112 (IT AT- AHMEDABAD) (MAG) It has been held that loose papers and documents seized from premises of third parties and statement recorded at back of assessee without it being afforded opportunity to interrogate said documents and without bringing on record any supporting evidence, could not be made basis for adding undisclosed income in hands of assessee . k) AMARJIT SINGH BAKSHI (HUF) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2003) 86 ITD 13 (DELHI) It has been held that where document in question was not recovered from assessee's possession but was recovered from N's possession, and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross- examination and further, N's testimony was not found credible at all, it could not be said that there was any iota of evidence to support revenue's case that a huge figure over and above figure booked in records and accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two registered sale deeds, wherein the seller is Sh kaku Singh and purchasers were Smt Nirmala Devi w/o Sh Mohan Lai and Smt Krishna Devi w/o Sh Sher Singh (Partner in M/s Surinder Sat Agro Foods.(affidavit placed in the Pb at Pg-21-22 and registered sale deeds along with English translation in the PB at page- 23- 30). 33. From the perusal of the affidavit of Sh Kaku Singh (Seller of property) has clearly affirmed that he had sold property to Smt Nirmala Devi w/o Sh Mohan Lai and Smt Krishna Devi w/o Sh Sher Singhfor an amount of Rs. 15.33.000/- and 15.10.000/- totalling Rs. 30,43,000/-. He has further stated that out of above said sum an amount of Rs. 16,03,000/- was received between 07.09.2010 to 31.03.2011 and the balance amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- is still outstanding. 34. In the said affidavit, Sh Kaku Singh has even stated that the Assessee has nothing to do with the amount of Rs. 16,03,000/- and he is only a dealer and witness to the amount received by him and the pending amount to be received by him. Further it is worth to mention here that the name of Sh Kaku Singh is repeatedly mentioned in the said alleged document in every narration. So, if the entries perta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
