9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deleting the addition of Rs.92,00,000/- made on account of unaccounted investment?" (B) "Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law the tribunal was right in holding that documents seized from third party cannot be a base for addition?" (C) "Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law the tribunal was justified in ignoring the statement of the seller recorded under Section 131 of the Act confirming receipt of Rs.92,00,000/- as on money?" 2. A search operation under Section 132(2) of the Income Tax Act was carried in the case of one Shri Vikas A. Shah. During the search operation under Section 132(2) of the Income Tax Act, various books of accounts, articles and valuables were seized. From these documents, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e however deleted the addition of Rs.92,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted investment (on money received) 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.92,00,000/- made on account of unaccounted investment, the revenue preferred appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment and order confirming the order passed by the CIT(A). 4. We have heard Shri Manav Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-revenue. It is not in dispute that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the ITAT has relied upon its own earlier order with respect to the co-purchaser-Abhalbhai Arjanbhai Jadeja with respect to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Shri Vikas A. Shah stated that he is yet to receive Rs.32 lacs from the assessee, which appears to be improbable because no prudent man could leave such a huge amount outstanding when the sale transaction is registered. He further noted that the land was purchased by the assessee and Kantibhai jointly and as per the documents for purchase which is registered with the sub-registrar at the value of Rs.9 lacs and this valuation has not been challenged by the Stamp Duty Authority and, therefore, there is no reason for presumption that the assessee has made any payment in excess of the said purchase price of Rs.9 lacs. Finally, ld CIT(A) has deleted this addition by stating that in the absence of any other corroborative evidence and in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. had not referred this land to the DVO for determining the market value on date of registration. The statement given by Vikas A. Shah was self service statement without any supporting evidence. There was no search carried out on the appellant. The seized papers were found in the possession of Shri Vikas A. Shah. The third person evidence cannot be base for addition on the basis of any entries therein. The ld. CIT(A) had also considered following decisions. I. Prathana Construction Pvt. Ltd. 70 TTJ 122 (Ahmedabad) II. Prabhat Oil Mills reported in 52 TTJ 533 (Ahmedabad) III. Jaindal Stainless Ltd. 9 DTR 345 (ITAT, Delhi) After considering all the facts and legal position of this issue, we do not find any reason to intervene in the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
