9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income on the basis of screen shot image of some kacha parchi noted by the search party on the mobile of the property broker, such kaccha parchi not found to exist and not confronted to the assessee, without evidentiary value, is bad in law. 3. That the "Sagar Plaza" flat having been sold at value 14.29% above the circle rate, Rs 67,00,000 added to income u/s 69 of the I Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and is required to be deleted. 4. That the Ld AO, despite request made by the assessee, did not provide copies of the statement of Sh Praveen Jain and his son Vaibhav Jain recorded by the DDIT (Inv) u/s 131 at the time of search, AND did not provide confront the assessee with copies of other material and information collected behind the assessee's back adversely used against him, acted against the principles of natural justice, rendering the addition made to income bad in law, liable to be deleted. 5. That Sh Pravin Jain, property broker AND his son Vaibhav Jain having affirmed in their affidavit / statement that the "sagar plaza flat was not sold through them, Rs 67,00,000 added to income is incorrect and is required to be deleted. 6. That addition made to income without co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the sale consideration of the property was fixed at Rs. 1,15,00,000/- out of which Rs. 48,00,000/- was to be registered value and balance amount of Rs. 67,00,000/- was to be transacted in cash. The Ld. AO found that assessee / appellant invested an amount of Rs. 67,00,000/- in cash in purchasing of property as aforesaid during FY 2020-21, over and above registered value and Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 67,00,000/- vide order dated 31.12.2022 as unexplained investment u/s 69 of Act, on account of failure on the part of assessee / appellant to establish the source of cash payments for purpose of property. 3. The assessee / appellant assails the above order before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of appeal, and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO, aggrieving by the same, the assessee / appellant before us by preferring instant appeal. 4. Heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material available before us. 5. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had purchased commercial flat No G-5 Sagar Plaza, District Centre, Laxmi Nager Delhi, from Smt. Ira Sharma, (50% owner) PAN: AATPS0759H, AND Anil S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writing of the assessee, The kaccha hand written slip is not an agreement and cannot be enforced in a court of law as it unsigned and unwitnessed, having no legal sanctity. There is no proper mention of the names, addresses and other particulars of the Buyers and the Sellers in the slip. Pravin Jain (property broker) admitted that he made dual quotes to secretly pocket the cash component of Rs 67,00,000. He quoted all cheque payments Rs 48,000 to Anil Sharma and Rs 1,15,00,000 to the buyers and kept a copy of the offer made to the buyer on his mobile for his record and reference. It is this noting on the mobile which is based to make addition to income. 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that, Sh Pravin Jain admitted this fact in his Affidavit filed before The CIT(A) on 07.01.2023, which is placed at page 32 to 34 on PB and paras 4 to 8 are reproduced as under: "4. That I quoted the sale price of the "Sagar Plaza" flat to Anil Sharma at Rs 48,00,000 all cheque, brokerage at 2% of the sale value and expenses on registration of the property in favour of the Buyer to be borne by the Seller. Other terms of sale of the property like period of payment, due diligence of the title of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly possible in search proceedings, by treating kachi parchi as agreement to sale, the Ld. AO ignored the basic principle of law that agreement will taken its shape when both concerned persons make signature upon it and without signature of necessary party to agreement, may not be termed as an agreement in the eye of law. So far the comparison, as mentioned by the Ld. AO in page 15 of the impugned assessment order, it may not alone sufficient to make inference regarding cash transaction of Rs. 67,00,000/-. 11. There is material substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee / appellant that hand written kaccha Slip did not exist as not found and seized by the search party and even upon the same, no mention of name of assessee and such a slip is can't said to be in the handwriting of the assessee / appellant. The contention of the Ld. AR having force that upon the slip in question, there is no any name mentioned of witness or also no signature of any witness in order to endorse / establish the veracity of alleged document and above all there is no any signature of the assessee upon it. So far, affidavit filed by Praveen Jain, before the Ld. CIT(A) is concerned, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute or rebut the fact that Praveen Jain broker, made dual quote to secretly pocket the cash component Rs. 67,00,000/- and also contended that the both lower authorities were under legal obligation to seek clarification from Praveen Jain, broker and but they did not do so and by this alone, it may be presumed that the both lower authorities impliedly by accepted that Pravin Jain made true quotes with intentions to pocket the cash component. It is also submitted that alleged deal did not materialized and no any cash transaction took place and addition in question without any definite evidence to support the same as it being only and only as surmises, conjecture, assumptions and presumptions. The Ld. AR also relied upon the judgment (2007) 211 CTR (Del) 180 CIT v/s SM Agarwal in which Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that it is well settled that the only person competent to give evidence on the truthfulness of the contents of the document is writer thereof. So, unless and until, the contents of the documents are proved against a person, the possession of the document or hand writing of that person, on such document by itself cannot prove the contents of the documents. On the basis of ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
