9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 82,35,639/- made by the Assessing officer on account of overdraft interest. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,53,80,000/-, Rs. 49,00,000/-, Rs. 18,50,000/-, Rs. 22,70,000/- made by the Assessing officer on account of on money payment against the land purchase. 3. Apropos ground no. 1 the learned CIT(DR) submitted that the AO was right in making addition in this regard because during the course of statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the I.T Act 1961 on 22.10.2011 and 15.11.2011, the assessee Sanjeev Agrawal has offered total undisclosed to the tune of Rs. 17,25,00,000/- in the hands of himself, his family members and his business concerns. The learned CIT(DR) further submitted that subsequently again vide letter dated 23.04.2012 before the DDIT-(Inv.)-1, Bhopal the assessee again confirmed the said surrender of Rs. 17.25 crores. The learned CIT(DR) further submitted that in the case of ACIT vs. Hukum Chand Jain reported as (2010) 191 Taxmann.com 319 (Chhatisgarh), the Hon'ble Chhatisgarh High Court has held that the admission is one important piece of evidence but it cannot be said it is conclusive. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e return of income. 6. The learned counsel, supporting the first appellate order, vehemently pointed out that the AO has failed to bring on record any positive or adverse evidence having nexus with the assessee or business transaction carried out by the assessee or by pointing out assessee connection with the seized documents in name or otherwise. Therefore, it was rightly concluded by the Ld. CIT(A) that the addition made by the AO was not on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search but only on the basis of statement of assessee Shri Sanjeev Agrawal only. The learned counsel also pointed out that during the post search enquiries no irregularity or adverse material have been brought on record and only addition made was towards income declared in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4). The learned counsel also place reliance on the various decisions including as listed below:- 1. ACIT (1) vs. Sudeep Maheshwari ITA No. 524/Ind/2013 2. Kailasben Mangarlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-(2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.) 3. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Tax Case No.8 of 1999 4. Ms/ Ultimate Builders vs. ACIT Central-II, Bho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate order, we further note that the learned first appellate authority after considering the stand of the AO, replying and explanation of the assessee concluded that the assessee has made the deduction of Rs. 6.5 crores by submitting that no such undisclosed income was earned and therefore no such income was required to be offered to tax. For the sake of completeness, we find appropriate to reproduced the relevant cooperative part of the first appellate order which read as follows:- 4.5.1 During the course of search at various premises of appellant various incriminating material/documents were found and seized. These documents were also confronted to appellant and the appellant in reply made voluntary surrender of Rs. 17.25 crores on various accounts. The brief details of additional income offered during the course of search are as under:- Particulars Amount Rs. in Crores Work in Progress at site "Sagar Premium Towers" 4.00 Advances given to parties 1.00 Cash kept at site "Sagar Premium Towers" 0.90 Cash kept at site "Sagar Landmark" 0.85 Miscellaneous Surrender (Shall be confirmed after study of all loose papers) 10.50 Total Amount 17.25 The appellant after fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat search in the case of appellant was started on 21.10.2011 and concluded on 22.10.2011. The statement of appellant was recorded on 24.10.2011 and cannot be utilized against assessee without having any corroborative evidence on record. 4.5.3 The AO on page 7 of the assessment order has given specific reference of loose paper mentioning details of payment of Rs. 6.75 crores which has been considered as incriminating documents by him based on which the addition has been made. I have gone through the said loose papers/observations and it has been observed that the said loose paper does not mention any amount more than Rs. 6.75 crores, however, appellant has already made voluntary disclosure of Rs. 10.75 crores in return filed by various concerns. All these facts have been accepted by the AO during the assessment proceedings and none of these facts have been disputed by the AO. Thus, the assessee has successfully explained that the seized paper and declared amount mentioned therein in return filed w/s 153A/139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the papers (except one) referred to in the assessment order, no other incriminating document was found suggesting unaccounted income. The A.O has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is also a settled position of law that the addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There has to be some material corroborating the contents of the statement. In the case in hand, revenue could not point out as what was the material before the A.O., which supported the contents of the statement. In the absence of such material, coupled with the fact that it is recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee himself had surrendered a sum of Rs.69,59,000/- and Rs. 75,00,000/- in A. Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. The A.O. failed to co-relate the disclosures made in the statement with the incriminating material gathered during the search. Therefore, no inference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 4.5.4 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.) has held that merely on the basis of admission, the assessee could not have been subject to additions, unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission. 4.5.5 Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court Shree Ganesh Trading Co. VIs Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. Here in this case, all the authorities below have merely reached to the conclusion of one conclusion merely on the basis of assumption resulting into fastening of the liability upon the assessee. The statement on oath of the assessee is a piece of evidence as per section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and when there is incriminating admission against himself, then it is required to be examined with due care and caution. In the judgment of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi (supra), the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has considered the issue in the facts of that case and found the explanation given by the assessee to be more convincing and that was not considered by the authorities below. Here in this case also, no specific reason has been given for rejection of the assessee's contention by which the assessee has retracted from his admission. None of the authorities gave any reason as to why Assessing Officer did not proceed further to enquire into the undisclosed income as admitted by the assessee in his statement under section 134(2) in fact situation where during the course of search, there was no recovery of assets or cash by the Department. This fact also has not been t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequences. Therefore, under Judicial review, courts have to exercise due care and caution that no man is condemned, due to erroneous or arbitrary exercise of authority conferred. " The court further held that "if the assessee makes a statement under s. 132(4) of the Act, and if there are any incriminating documents found in his possession, then the case is different. On the contra, if mere statement made under s. 132(4) of the Act, without any corroborative material, has to be given credence, than it would lead to disastrous results. Considering the nature of the order of assessment, in the instant case characterised as undisclosed and on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that mere statement without there being any corroborative evidence, should not be treated as conclusive evidence against the maker of the statement. " 4.5.8 Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal Indore in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Yogesh Kumar Hotwani 30 ITJ 353/380 (Ind-Trib) has held that no addition can be made merely based on statement w/s. 132(4) without linking to the seized books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things. In p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fact, earned by the assessee from undisclosed sources. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make impugned addition on the basis of statement of the assessee only along with his on whims, wrong assumptions and presumption by arising suspicion and doubt over the statements and explanations of the assessee. At this juncture, we take respectful cognizance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. Company vs CIT (supra) wherein it was held that the suspicion, however, strong cannot take a place of proof. In the subsequent judgment in the case of K.P Verghese vs. ITO (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court again held that the assessee must be shown to have received more than what is disclosed by him. 13. On careful consideration of stand of the AO and basis taken by the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition first of all we may point out that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kailasben Mangarlal Choksh vs. CIT(supra) it was held that merely on the basis of admission of assessee, the assessee could have been subjected to addition, unless and until some collaborative evidence is found in support of such admission. Meaning thereby addition on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gical conclusion that the assessee during statement and subsequent surrender letter dated 23.04.2012 made head wise surrender of Rs. 6.75 crore but remaining amount of Rs. 10.50 crore was kept open to be declared as miscellaneous surrender which was to be confirmed after study all the papers. The assessee filed return of income u/s. 153A of the Act, subsequently and also included Rs. 4 crore on his account and his wife account leaving the amount of Rs. 6.50 crore. 17. Therefore, we are in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel of the assessee, which has been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A), that the assessee right from search and seizure operation till filing of return could not find any substantive material or investment which could be considered for supporting the surrender of reaming amount Rs. 6.5 crore and the AO has made addition in hands of assessee only on the basis of statement of assessee recorded during search and post search period and letter dated 23.04.2012 of the assessee without any supporting and collaborative adverse or positive material against the assessee showing earning of undisclosed income during the relevant financial year. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny admission, by any of person or either by appellant, addition cannot be made on basis of sheer imagination and guess work. It is settled legal position that onus of proof is on the person who makes any allegation and not on the person who has to defend. As per legal maxim "affairmanti non neganti incumbit probation" means burden of proof lies upon him who affirms and not upon him who denies. Similarly as per doctrine of common law "incumbit probation qui digit non qui negat" i.e. burden lies upon one who alleges and not upon one who deny the existence of the fact. Further, it is most important to mention that nowhere in the said impunged diary name of the appellant is mentioned and suggesting any such unaccounted payment/receipt. The AO has failed to discharge his onus of proof especially when addition has been made under "deeming fiction". In view of this lacune on the part of A, impugned addition is legally not sustainable. As held in the case of CIT vs KP Varghese 131 IT 574 (SC) by Hon'ble Apex Court in absence of evidence that actually assessee paid more amount than declared in registered deed, no addition can be made. In the case of Bansal Strips (P) Ltd & Ors Vs. ACIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by which formula or methodology the amounts were treated as amounts in lakhs. Thirdly, the impunged transactions does not have even basis details of transactions such as whether the amount represents receipt/payment/balance amount, date of payment, mode of payment, details of payer/beneficiary, purpose of transaction etc. My findings on the issue under consideration are based on the various conclusions drawn by me which have been discussed in the above paras. Therefore, the A was not justified in making additions simply of guess work and solely on the basis of some dumb loose paper. Thus, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 6,25,000/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed. 21. On careful consideration of basis taken by the AO and reason for deletion of addition recorded by the Ld. CIT(A), first of all we further note that the basis taken by the AO i.e. loose papers records the cash payment of Rs. 6,25,000/- for A.Y. 2012-13 to various persons which were not recorded in the books of accounts of assessee thus the same is unexplained expenditure and covered u/s. 69C of the Act. Further for calculating amount of undisclosed expenditure the A.O converted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with mobile number does not create any relation with the assessee for making addition in the hands of assessee u/s. 69C of the Act. 24. Furthermore, supporting the first appellate order the learned counsel submitted that the search operation on the assessee and group was conducted on 21.10.2011 and there was no material or document was found and seized from assessee pertaining to this transaction. He further explained that subsequently another search and seizure operation was conducted on third party Shri Sudheer Sharma Group on 20.06.2012 wherein alleged diary was seized which cannot be used against the assessee. The learned counsel lastly submitted that in such factual position the presumption available for the AO u/s. 292C of the Act cannot be validly drawn against the assessee for making baseless addition. 25. The learned counsel of the assessee submitted that under identical facts and circumstances ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Trilok Chand Chaudhary reported as (2019) 33 NYPTTJ 610 (Delhi Trib.) held that the material found in the course of another party cannot be used in the case of present assessee in a case whom there was separate search under separate search warrant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that in para 27.4 the AO rightly made addition in the hands of the assessee by observing that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 1,22,86,668/- including an amount of Rs. 82,35,639/-pertaining to present A.Y. 2012-13 and the said over draft interest claimed by the assessee was not allowable as business expenditure. Therefore the impugned amount debited by the assessee as over draft interest for A.Y. 2012-13 was rightly disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act by the AO. 28. Replying to the above the learned counsel of the assessee, drawing our attention towards relevant part of the assessment order while adjudicating ground no. 12 of assessee, submitted that in para 4.8 the Ld. CIT(A) has considered entire facts and circumstances of the issue and thereafter deleted the addition by following the orders of the ITAT Mumbai in the case Sudhir Dattaram Patil vs. DCIT 2 SOT 678 (ITAT Mum) and AH Baldota vs.ACIT (2016) 103 TTJ 517. Therefore, first appellate order is quite correct and sustainable, hence, the same may kindly be upheld. 29. On careful consideration of rival submission first of all we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with following observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration, commission, etc., but not in respect of their share of profit from the firm which is exempt under section 10(2A). A combined reading of sections 14A and 10(A) leads to the conclusion that the share of profit from a firm being exempt under section 10(A), the expenditure incurred in relation to this income is not subject to any deduction. Moreover, the profits of a firm are nothing but the profits of the partners who work for and on behalf of the firm. The profits, so earned, are firstly taxed in the hands of the firm and thereafter divided among the partners according to their profit sharing ratio. Due to this reason, the same profit is not again subject to tax in the hands of the partners. Thus, an assessee is not entitled to claim expenditure of any nature against the income earned from a firm as share of profit in the capacity of a partner of the firm. So far as the assessability of salary. remuneration, etc., is concerned, these heads of income are provided to be taxed by the Legislature under section 28(v) as profits and gains of business or profession, with the result that, though the terms 'salary' or 'remuneration' are used, the character of the incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t paid on the money borrowed for the purpose of making capital contribution to the partnership firm has to be fully allowed in the hands of assessee/partner. Resultantly, the ground raised by the assessee was to be allowed Similar view was taken by Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of AH Baldota vs ACIT (2016) 103 TTJ 517 wherein it has has been held that:- Interest on borrowed capital - Assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 - Whether if a partner gets any bonus, commission, remuneration and interest from firm which is allowed as a deduction in hands of firm, then partner has a source of income under head 'Profits and gains from business and profession' against which expenditure incurred by partner, e.g., interest paid on borrowed capital invested in firm, can be claimed as deduction - Held, yes - Whether by virtue of section 10(2A) share income from firm does not form part of total income of partner and, therefore, expenditure incurred by partner in earning that income would not be allowable - Held, yes - Assessee was a partner in a firm - He borrowed money from a bank and invested same in partnership firm - Assessee paid interest on borrowed money and claimed deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under 131 were issued to the sellers Rekha Bai and others and their statements were recorded jointly. During the statement these persons produced an agreement dated 27/11/2010 for the sale of 3.69 Acres of land between Shri Lakhmichand Hirani and Shri Pradeep Sharma on one side and Shri Lalaram, Shri Devi Singh and Smt. Rekha Bai on other side for a consideration of Rs. 5,03,68,500/-. The sale agreement is reproduced at page 33 of the assessment order. The joint statement of the sellers were recorded by the DDI (In.) who stated that they have received 5,03,68,5001- from Pradeep Sharma and Lakhmichand Hirani. The statement of Shri Pradeep Sharma and Pradeep Hirani were also recorded by ADIT. On the basis of these statements, the Ld. AO has made the addition of Rs. 3,53,80,000/- u/s 69 as unaccounted unexplained investment on the protective basis in the hands of the assessee and has made addition in the case of M/s Agrawal buildcon on substantive basis. The Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition without any basis therefore impugned order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of AO. 32. Replying to the above the learned counsel submitted that that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive basis in the hands of M/s Agrawal Buildcon. The substantive additions have been discussed and decided in depth vide appellate order passed in the case of M/s Agrawal Buildcon vide appeal No CIT(A)-3/BPL/IT-11392/2015-16 for AY 2012-13 dated 17.07.2020. In view of the facts that substantive addition has already been adjudicated in depth in the case of M/s Agrawal Buildcon, the addition made by the AO of the equal amount on protective basis in the case of appellant is directed to be Deleted.In case the demand in the hands of Ms Agrawal Buildcon are directed by the higher judicial authorities to make addition in the case of appellant then the demand in the case of the appellant would revive automatically to that extent. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 3,53,80,000/- is Deleted. Accordingly, appeal on this ground is Allowed. 34. On careful consideration of relevant part of assessment order, first appellate order and conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A), we note that the addition has been made by the AO on protective basis in the hands of assessee and on substantive basis in the hands of M/s. Agarwal Buildcon, we find it appropriate to consider the findings in the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the land) on 10.12.2013 wherein he reiterated that he has received cash amount of Rs. 54 lakh on 24.12.2010 and Rs. 49 lakhs on 03.05.2011 which was deposited to the banks account of his family members immediately after receipt of cash from assessee Shri Sanjeev Agrawal. During statement recorded on 29.11.2013 the seller of land submitted copies of bank passbook of all family members wherein deposits have been made on 24.12.2010 and 04.05.2011 simultaneously to bank accounts of six family members of seller of land to the assessee. However this appeal is pertain to A.Y. 2012-13, therefore we are concerned with the issue of payment of cash "on money" of Rs. 49 lakh during FY 2011-12 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13. The Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without any reasonable basis and justification therefore impugned first appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the AO. The Ld. CIT(DR) vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) in para (b), (c) and (d) at pages 37 to 40 of first appellate order has made irrelevant observations which are perverse while dismissing the action of the AO, therefore, the first appellate order m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sellers failed to explain where the said cash received was utilised and date of receipt of cash. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was right in grating relief to the assessee. The learned counsel submitted that the AO was not justified in making addition on account of owned money paid to sellers u/s. 69A of the Act in absence of any collaborative evidence and simply relying on the basis of statement of third party. Therefore addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 49 lakh may kindly be deleted. The learned counsel submitted that the facts and circumstances of other issues wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of rs. 22,70,000/- and 18,50,000/- are also identical and similar therefore the contention of assessee is equally applicable to other second and third limbs of grounds of revenue. Therefore first appellate order may kindly be upheld by dismissing the ground of revenue. 40. The learned counsel on the addition of Rs. 18,50,000/- made by AO submitted that the addition has been made merely on the basis of statement of third party/seller without any other incriminating material in the hands of assessee or any material found and seized during the course of search and survey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence merely on the basis of difference between consideration shown in the registered sale deed and valuation taken by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The learned counsel submitted that even otherwise provision of section u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is applicable with effect from A.Y. 2014-15 and not the present A.Y. 2012-13 therefore in view of order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case ITO vs. Ms. Inderjeet Kaur (2012) 50 SOT 377 (Chd.) the addition could not have been made in the hands of assessee under any provision of the Act, applicable at that point of time for the transactions undertaken during FY 2011-12 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13. 43. Placing rejoinder above the Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that in para 4.3.4 the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the sellers failed to explain where the said cash received were utilised and date of receipt of cash which is incorrect perverse and wrong conclusion as Shri Bhagwan Ram Chokse in his statement as well as cross examination dated 10.12.2013 replying to question no. 3 stated the date of received of cash of Rs. 49 lakh as 03.05.2011 and also submitted that the cash received from the assessee along with cheque amount was deposited to the bank accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ite correct which requires no interference. The Ld. CIT(DR) vehemently pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without any reasonable and justified basis. Therefore first appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 46. On careful consideration of above submission first of all, we take up the issue of payment of own money of Rs. 49 lakh to Shri Dayaram Chokse and Rs. 18,50,000/- to Shri Kanhiyalal Pal on account of purchase of land i.e. second & third part og ground no. 4 of revenue. From the para 21 to 21.13 of assessment order it is clear that the Assessing Officer recorded statement of Shri Bhagwan Das Chokse son of Shri Daya Ram Chokse on behalf and presence of his father Shri Daya Ram Chokse, who appeared before the AO along with his father Shri Daya Ram Chokse and the statements recorded before the AO were duly signed by seller Shri Daya Ram Chokse as well as his son Shri Bhagwan Das Chokse. Replying to question no. 1 Shri Bhagwandas Chokse categorically stated that since his father is very old therefore he is giving statement on his behalf in his presence. Statement of Shri Bhagwan Das Chokse was recorded on 26.11.2013, 29. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue of own money of Rs. 18,50,000/- from Shri Kanhiya lal Pal and this third limb of ground no. 4 of revenue also require to be re-adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) after calling comment/remand report from the AO on the explanation, submissions and documentary evidences, if any, filed by the assessee. Therefore, in view of foregoing the second and third limb of ground no. 4 of revenue are restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A)for a fresh denovo adjudication, without being influenced from the earlier first appellate order and after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 49. So far as regarding fourth limb of ground no. 4 of revenue, pertaining to the challenging deletion of addition of Rs. 22,70,000/- is concerned the A.O. made addition only on the strength of copy of registered sale deed executed by Shri Amit Kumar Patni in favour of partnership firm M/s. Shiva Reality wherein the assessee was also a partner. The AO noted that the assessee purchase land of 0.67 hectare situated at gram Samardha Kaliyasot on 07.09.2011, showing consideration of Rs. 35 lakh therein as against fair market value based on registrar stamp duty of Rs. 57,70,000/- . The AO show cause the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o application for determining the market value under Chapter XXC of the Act. It is limited only for payment of the stamp duty. The AO has simply presumed that village samardha kaliysot is a prime area of tehsil Huzur, Bhopal and the rates of land are very high. It is settled legal pronouncement that presumption how strong may cannot take place of evidence. Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Vallabhbhai Purshottambhai Surani 54 SOT 556 (ITAT Ahmedabad) has held as under:- "Section 69B is deeming fiction which provides that addition can be made by AO when conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. A failed to bring on record any material to support his estimated price. Section 50C is deeming provision where under stamp duty rate is treated as full value of consideration for purpose of computing capital gain us 48. It is applicable in case of seller of property and therefore cannot be invoked in case of purchaser of property for purpose of Section 69B. AO has not made any independent enquiry or collected corroborative evidence to justify addition. AO failed to bring on record any material to support his estimated rates. Therefore, relying on decisions of High Courts and of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll value of consideration received or accrued to seller, cannot be extended to the provisions of section 69, in the case of purchasers. Such statutory legal fiction cannot be extended, to make in the purchasers liable to tax, in the context of undisclosed investment us 69 of the Act. It has been held that legal fictions created for a definite purpose should be limited for that purpose and cannot be extended beyond their legislative needs. It is well-settled that deeming provision creating legal fictions, specially in taxing statute have to be strictly construed. 51. In view of above from the assessment order, we clearly note that, except copy of registered sale deed executed in favour of firm of M/s. Shiva Reality, there was nothing else in the hands of AO in support of addition made by him u/s. 69B of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) rightly observed that the deeming fixation of section 50C of the Act can be applied in the case of seller only and not in the case of purchaser and the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable with effect from A.Y. 2014-15 onward and not for A.Y. 2012-13. The Ld. CIT(A) rightly relied on the order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of ITO vs. Inderj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
