TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that being co-owner, the assessee is also entitled for similar treatment. The Revenue cannot treat the assessee indifferently. We have gone through the scrutiny assessments completed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and we note that the proportionate addition for impugned amount were not made by the assessing officer, in respect of above partners. The assessee, being co-owner, is also entitled for similar treatment. Decided in favour of assessee. Addition made on the basis of loose papers found and seized from the third person - HELD THAT:- We note that Assessing Office did not make any inquiry from buyers of flat in respect of actual prices paid by them. He also did not make any other inquiry in order to corroborate his conclusion. There is no incriminating evidence to show that the assessee has sold the flats at a higher rate. we note that the impounded loose sheet can at the most be termed as dumb document which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not relied upon and made the basis of addition. Therefore, we observe that ld CIT(A) has rightly held that the jottings on the loose pap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For the Appellant : Shri Ramesh Malpani, CA For the Respondent : Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: This is the bunch of seven appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue and Cross Objections filed by Assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2020-21, all are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A/154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. Since, the issues involved in all these appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. First, we shall take Revenue s appeal and Assessee s appeals for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. For assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has filed two appeals viz: in IT(SS)A No. 32/SRT/2023, which is against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.09.2021 and the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the unsigned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the impugned unsigned assessment order has been passed and served on the assessee on 16.10.2021 by changing the figure of assessed income at Rs. 3,85,77,900/-, as against, originally assessed income of Rs. 24,77,900/-, as per computation sheet and demand notice uploaded on 30.09.2021 and is therefore, clearly wrong, invalid and time barred. (ii)Ground No. 2: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition to the tune of Rs. 12,62,500/- on the basis of unsigned and irrelevant paper. (3) In ITA No. 142/SRT/2023 for AY.2017-18, Assessee`s appeal, for AY.2017-18, the grounds of appeal are as follows: Ground No. 1: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of rectification order passed by Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. To adjudicate the above appeals of the Assessee and Revenue, for AY.2017-18, we shall take lead case in IT(SS)A No. 65/SRT/2023. 6. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 in the presence of witnesses Shri Milan B. Vasani and Shri Ramesh Pithwadi. The said satakhat reflects that the land bearing block No. 786, 787 and 789 of village Puna admeasuring about 17785 sq. yards agreed to be sold and purchased for Rs. 61,551/- per sq. yard. The total area of each land at block No. 786, 787 and 789 of village Puna was verified from the website of Gujarat government, any ROR from which it is gathered that her land at block No. 786, Puna, has been sold for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- whereas as per the saudachitthi found, total consideration of the said land is Rs. 23,08,16,250/- which is as under: Sr. No. Block No. Sq. Mtr. Sq. Yard Rate Amount 1. 786 3136 3750 61551 23,08,16,250 8. Therefore, assessing officer observed that an amount of Rs. 20,08,16,250/- has been invested in cash for the said land block No. 786 by the purchasers. Shri Rajendra chandak and Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel are the sellers an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dadia and his family members (total 10 joint owners) as mentioned in sale deed as well as village form No. 6. This fact is also evident from village Form No. 7 annexed as page No. 17 of the registered sale deed. Shri Rajendra Chandk, Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel or Shri R. D. Palitna were not the owners of this land. They are totally irrelevant persons in respect of the land purchased by us. My son Shri Rakesh Khetan along with Shri Vinod Goswami and Shri Vishal Jalan have purchased this land from Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai Radadia and his family members (total 10 joint owners as mentioned in sale deed) and not from Shri Rajendra Chandk and Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel as has been incorrectly assumed in your above referred notice. They have purchased this land in FY.2020-21 for which payments have been made in FY.2020-21 and sale deed was executed and registered on 22.02.2021. Mutation entry in the revenue records (Village Frorm No. 6 ) was certified on 09.06.2021. Earlier, we had nothing to do with this land. Thus, this land was not purchased by them in the year under assessment nor the same was purchased from the persons mentioned in your notice. We were totally unaware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as under: Rs.51,00,000/- paid on 02.05.2016, Rs. 50,00,000/- will be paid by 05.05.2016, Rs. 2,60,00,000/- will be paid after order/documentation. Therefore, assessing officer noted that at page No. 76 of the Annexure- A-4, there is mention of cash receipts out of above mentioned amount and the receiver of the cash as a token of receipt has also signed it. The details of such cash payments are as under: Date 02.05.2016 - Rs. 50,00,000/- cash received Date 03.05.2016 - Rs. 50,00,000/- cash received Based on these facts, the assessing officer asked the assessee to explain the said transaction towards unaccounted investment made with documentary evidences as appearing in the books of accounts. 11. In response, the assessee submitted written submission before the assessing officer, which is reproduced below: With reference to above, I humbly beg to submit that I had not received copy of the MOU (Page No. 75 to 79 of Annexure A-4 stated to be seized from residence of Shri Shankarlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani) as mentioned in above referred notice. In the absence of copy of same and statement/explanation of Shri Shankarlal Uttamchandani in respect of the same, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f said firm having share of 12.5% (others being Mr. Naresh Agarwal (37.5%), Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani (37.5%) and Mr. Rajesh Poddar (12.5%)). Hence, in absence of any details that this amount of Rs. 1,01,00,000/-was sourced from M/s Ketan Textiles, it has to be held that it was paid by the partners in the profit sharing ratio of 37.5: 37.5:12.5 :12.5 between Mr. Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Hiren Uttamchandani, Mr. Rajesh Poddar and the assessee respectively. Accordingly, out of the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 3,61,00,000/-, the addition to the tune of Rs. 12,62,500/- (12.5% of Rs. 1,01,00,000) was sustained in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee partly. 14. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue, as well as Assessee, both are in appeal before us. 15. Learned DR for the revenue argued that the documents and papers found at the residence of assessee during the search proceedings prove beyond doubt that the assessee had major role in the said land transaction. From the details available with assessing officer it is ascertain that the assessee had made huge investment in land in Surat and is partner in many f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of said third party from whose place the same was seized. However, assessing officer, without providing any of these papers, made the addition of whole of amount of Rs. 3,61,00,000/- in the hands of assessee as unaccounted/ unexplained investment. The ld Counsel submitted that said MOU is not at all relevant in case of assessee. As mentioned by assessing officer, the MOU was between M/s Ketan Textiles and the lease givers. The assessee is an individual, had nothing to do with the same. Even if some investment is made, it is up to the firm M/s Ketan Textiles to explain the same. Merely because the assessee was also a small partner in the firm does not mean that the addition can be made in the hands of assessee. Thus, the so called MoU, is irrelevant document for assessee, as an individual. Besides the said MOU was not found and seized during the course of search and seizure action in the case of assessee but was seized from a third party. Apart from this, addition is also beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act, as the same is not based on any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search and seizure action in the case of assessee. The assessee has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese three partners. When the Department has not made addition in the hands of other partners, then why the assessee should suffer alone. There should be equality in imposing taxation. Therefore, when the said amount of Rs. 1,01,00,000/-, has not been taxed in the hands of other partners, the part amount of Rs. 12,62,500/- (12.5% of Rs. 1,01,00,000) should not be taxable in the hand of assessee. 21. Shri Malpani, further argued that Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the arguments of the assessee on the technical issue. The Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate that assessment order was unsigned by the Assessing Officer, therefore assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is not in accordance with law. If the assessment order is unsigned then it would be deemed that no assessment order was framed by the Assessing Officer, therefore Ld. CIT(A) was erred in upholding the validity of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that the impugned unsigned assessment order has been passed and served upon the assessee on 16.10.2021 by changing the figure of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs, however in the succinct manner, the relevant facts and background are reiterated in order to appreciate the controversy and the issue for adjudication. As per the assessing officer, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in Shree Kuberji Group and the business and residential premises of Shri Rajendra Prasad Babulal Khetan were also covered as he is the partner in some of the firms of the Group. During the course of search, various incriminating documents were found and seized. During the course of the search at the residence of Shri Shankarlal Nebhumal Uttmchandani, loose paper page No. 1 to 150 were found and seized and inventoried as Annexute-A-4. The Page No. 75 to 79 of the said Annexure-A-4 is regarding MOU dated 02.05.2016, regarding property situated at Plot No. 141, T.P.No.-8, F.P.No.54, Umarwada. In the aforesaid MOU, first party (lease taker of the property) were partners of firm Ketan Textile i.e. Nareshkumar Vishveshwarlal Agarwal and Rajendra Prasad Babulal Khaitan (the assessee). The Second party (lease giver of the property) was Devendrabhai Mulchanddas Jariwala and Prahladbhai Mulchanddas Jari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely because the assessee was also a small partner in the firm does not mean that the addition can be made in the hands of assessee. Thus, the so called MoU is irrelevant document for assessee, as an individual. The said MoU was not found and seized during the course of search and seizure action in the case of assessee but was seized from a third party. Assessee specifically requested to assessing officer to provide him copy of the said document and explanation of third party in respect of the same. However, assessing officer did not provide the same to assessee and straight away made the addition of whole of amount in the hands of assessee by assuming the same as unexplained investment. The assessee also submitted that the addition is also beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act, as the same is not based on any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search and seizure action in the case of assessee. The Assessee has not entered into any such transaction with above mentioned parties (lease givers) and has never taken any such property on lease and has not made any such payment /investment. There has been no such finding at all in the case of assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the owners/sellers of the land either by M/s Ketan Textiles or by its partners. There is evidence in the receipts enclosed with the MOU that the amount of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- in cash was paid to the owners in two installments of Rs. 51,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- on 02.05.2016 and 03.05.2016 respectively. The assessee has not been able to produce any evidence that such amount of cash was available in the books of M/s Ketan Textiles. The assessee filed a letter on 03.01.2023 with enclosure (being a photocopy) stating that the source of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- was cash available with M/s Shree Kuberji Developers which was paid as advance and was received back on 07.05.2016 as transaction did not materialize. This seems to be afterthought because the transaction was to take place in M/s Ketan Textiles, in such case how can the cash available with some other firm with different partners can be the source of the said cash? This contention of the assessee was rejected by ld CIT(A). Therefore, ld CIT(A) noted that the cash in question shall be deemed to have been paid by the partners of M/s Ketan Textiles. The assessee was the partner of said firm having share of 12.5% (others being Mr. Naresh A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 and in case of Smt. Prabhaben H.Desai in the assessment order dated 27.09.2013 passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. The AR for the assessee submits that being co-owner the assessee is also entitled for similar treatment. The Revenue cannot treat the assessee indifferently. In support of his submission the AR relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Kumar Rani Meenakshi Achi (207) 292 ITR 624 (Mad), decision of Ahmedabad Bench in Chetanbhai Prahaldbhai Gami Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2082/Ahd/2013) dated 19.07.2019 and CBDT Circular No. 014(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 1. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of Lower Authorities. 2. We have considered the submission of both the parties and gone through the orders of Lower Authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the AR of the assessee. Before us, the AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that in assessee s co-owner case, the revenue has accepted similar Long Term Capital Gain in the scrutiny assessment. Copy of the assessment order in respect of two co-owners is placed on record. We have noted that no counter to the submission of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The assessee has consciously not filed return of income to avoid payment of tax. Therefore, Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated on this issue for concealment of income. 5. We have noted that identical worded assessment order was passed in other co-owner case i.e. Smt. Prabhaben Harshadrai Desai, relevant part of the assessment order is extracted below; 3. On perusal of records and details submitted by the assessee it was found that the assessee was co-owner having share of 6.25% in the property sold for Rs. 2,00,00,001/- on 19.01.2009 situated at Survey No. 86, Lunsikui, Navsari. Value of property as per stamp duty valuation was determined at Rs. 4,09,01,000/-. The assessee has not declared capital gain as he has not filed Return of Income for AY 2009-10. The said property was inherited by the assessee. The assessee has submitted valuation report of the property from Govt. Approved Valuer who has arrived value of property at Rs. 66,61,020 as on 01.04.1981. The value of the assessee s share comes to Rs. 4,16,314. Indexed cost as per section 48 of the Act is worked out at Rs. 24,22,947/-. As per stamp duty authority the assessee s share being 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be granted. 29. We note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the other partners` scrutiny assessment were completed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and the proportionate addition for impugned amount of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- were not made by the assessing officer. The details of scrutiny assessment are as follows: (i) Hiren Shankerbhai Uttamchandani (37.5%), the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was completed on 24.03.2022. (ii) Rajesh Poddar (12.5%), the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was completed on 29.03.2022. (iii) Nareshkumar Bisweshwarlal Agarwal (37.5%), the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was completed on 30.03.2022. 30. We have gone through the scrutiny assessments completed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and we note that the proportionate addition for impugned amount of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- were not made by the assessing officer, in respect of above partners. The assessee, being co-owner, is also entitled for similar treatment. Hence respectfully following the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year (AY).2019-2020 and the cross objection raised by the assessee in AY.2019-2020. The summarized grounds of appeal of Revenue and the summarized grounds of cross objections are reproduced below: (1)Assessment Year 2019-20, IT(SS)A No. 66/SRT/2023,Rajendraparasd Babulal, (Revenue appeal): (i) Ground No. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 2,10,62,281/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue states that addition was made based on incriminating details. In real estate market to evade the taxation, the transactions are made on plain paper without registration of sale deed. The ld. CIT(A) granted relief dehorse provisions of section 292C of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) was also erred in deleting the addition ignoring the principles of Human Probability test that is, preponderance of probabilities which is applicable for income tax proceedings. (ii) Ground No. 5: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 60,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained gift. (Similar ground No. 5 in AY.2020-21 raised by the Revenue). (2)Assessee s CO No. 11/SRT/2023, for AY.2019-20: (i) The ld. CIT(A) erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rs. 2,10,62,281/- as unexplained investment in the property purchased. 41. On appeal, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition, therefore Revenue is in appeal before us and assessee is in cross objection before us, vide CO.No.11/SRT/2023 42. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that in the transaction of property, the assessee s share is at Rs. 3,84,61,500/- [7,69,23000/2]. Apart from the above it was observed by the assessing officer that payment of Rs. 4,21,24,562/-, has been paid by assessee and Shri Vinod Goswami and being an equal shareholder i.e. 35% each, the payment of Rs. 2,10,62,281/- has been made by each. The said transaction has made in cash. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 2,10,62,281/- should be treated as unaccounted income in the hands of assesses for the year under consideration. Therefore, ld DR prays the Bench that addition made by the assessing officer may be upheld. 43. On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee, pleaded that addition has been made on the basis of two rough loose papers stated to be seized from one Shri Jayantibhai Bhulabhai Patel (JBP), by presumptively relating the same with the assessee. These loose papers are pasted on Page No. '3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was not found in the premises of the assessee but was found in the premises of third party and therefore, the addition made in the order u/s 153A of the Act was beyond the scope of the said section. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vallamji R. Patel TA No. 1813 of 2006 and of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Prarthana Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT 70 TTJ 122 (Ahmedabad). In both the above judgments, it has been held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of rough papers or diaries etc. found / seized from third parties without corroborative evidence. Further, it was pleaded that the incriminating material contains the name Khetan ji or R.K. which cannot be the basis for treating the jottings relating to the assessee especially when there is no property alleged to be purchased jointly was identified by the assessing officer and hence, it was submitted that the incriminating material found in the form of loose sheets should be treated as dumb document and merely resemblance of the name or the initial cannot be the basis for making the addition in the ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnexure-A-1 containing copies of gift deeds either donated by the assessee or received by him. During the assessment proceedings, according to the assessing officer, the assessee could not substantiate the sources of funds in the hands of giver of gift, relation with the donor and donee and did not prove conclusively that the donor had sufficient funds being reflected in their books of accounts. Hence the assessing officer has made the addition amounting to Rs. 60,30,000/- on account of unexplained gifts received from the family members as accommodation entries. 49. On appeal, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition, therefore Revenue is in appeal before us. Learned DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). We have heard both the parties. We note that ld CIT(A) observed that it is a fact that the gift deeds from the assessee's brother Mr. Basudev Khetan were found during the course of survey in the office premises of M/s Nilkant Silks, a Prop, concern of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 11/SRT/2023, for assessment year 2019-20, therein the assessee has raised the technical issue stating that ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the unsigned assessment order passed by Assessing Officer, which was served on the assessee on 16.10.2021 by changing the figure of assessed income at Rs. 3,07,81,040/-, as originally assessed income of Rs. 36,88,360/-, as per computation sheet and demand notice uploaded on 30.09.2021, therefore, assessment order is invalid and time barred, hence, such order may be quashed. Since we have upheld the order of ld CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, this technical ground raised by the assessee is rendered academic and infructuous, hence does not require adjudication. 54. In the result, Assessee`s Cross Objection No. 11/SRT/2023, for assessment year 2019-20, is dismissed, being infructuous. 55. Now, we shall take Revenue s appeal for AY.2020-21 in IT(ss)A No. 67/SRT/2023 and Assessee s cross objection No. 12/SRT/2023 for AY.2020-21, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in its Cross Objections are summarized, which are reproduced below: (1) IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pasted on page nos. 3 to 9 of assessment order. From this document following facts are evident viz: (i) M/s. Shri Kuberji Enterprise is a partnership firm formed on 29/01/2014 and registered with the Registrar of Firms (ROF) with regn. No. GUJ/SRT/(17) 38917 dated 05/02/2014. As per information with assessee, this firm is assessed with the same assessing officer, (ii)Assessee or his son (Nitesh Khetan) or any other family member was not a partner into the said firm and have never become partner into same, (iii)Parties at Sl. No. '1' to '5' of the draft agreement were partners of the said firm as on the date of this draft agreement i.e. 01/02/2020. By this draft amendment agreement, Shri Nitesh R. Khetan (son of assessee) and Shri Vinod M. Goswami were proposed to be taken as new partners into the said firm w.e.f, 28/01/2020. However, assessee and his son were not prepared to join this firm and, therefore, this draft agreement was not signed by the assessee or his son, Nitesh Khetan. It was just a proposal on the part of partners of said firm, which was never executed by the assessee or his son. Hence, this is just a proposal document which was never executed and ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing officer is the partnership amendment agreement dated 01. 02.2020, wherein the son of the assessee, Shri Nitesh R Khetan and Shri Vinod Goswami were to be admitted, as new partners in firm M/s Shree Kuberji Enterprises. The evidence for the same was two loose papers (page No. 8 and 11 of annexure A-l) found from the residence of Shri Vinod Goswami containing the details of the offer so received. On perusal of the partnership amendment agreement, as pasted on page No. 3 to 9 of the assessment order, it is evident that the same is not signed by one of the existing partners, namely Shri Natwarbhai M. Harlalka and by the incoming partner Shri Nitesh R. Khetan. This shows that the said agreement was not signed by all the parties and did not become final. It is submitted by the assessee that as he or his son Mr. Nitesh Khetan never signed the said agreement, the contents of the same are not applicable to either the assessee or his son. During assessment proceeding, assessee also requested the assessing officer to verify the fact of his son's not joining the said firm from the ITBA and PAN data base of the said firm, latest return filed by the said firm, registrar of firms as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose sheets of papers found as page No. 8 and 11 of Annexure A-l containing the details of offer received have no evidentiary value, more so when it is a fact that the said offer was not ultimately accepted and materialized as the assessee or his son did not become partner of the said firm. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chintan Jadavbhai J. Patel vs. ITO 404 ITR 76 wherein it was held that the unsigned and unexecuted document does not have any evidentiary value and no action can be taken on the basis of such unsigned document. In view of the law laid down in above case laws, the addition made just on the basis of two loose sheets of papers containing the details of offer received but cannot be sustained in the absence of any other corroborative. In view of above facts, ld CIT(A) held that addition made towards the unaccounted/ unexplained investment/ contribution for becoming partner into the said Firm M/s. Shree Kuberji Enterprise and its land cannot be sustained. The incriminating material relied upon by the assessing officer do not suggest any contribution/ investment actually made by the assessee. Therefore, the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
