9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned person, from whom the said document was recovered, had stated that he was not aware of the correctness of the contents of the document. Merely based on the said loose paper, the addition in the case of the assessee without any corroborative evidence in this respect was not warranted and no evidentiary value can be attached to such a document in the absence of any circumstantial or corroborative evidence. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this respect - Decided against revenue. - IT (SS)A No. 78/M/2008, IT(SS)A No. 79/M/2008 - - - Dated:- 27-5-2015 - B. R. Baskaran, AM And Sanjay Garg, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Vipul Joshi, AR Shri Abhishek Tilak, AR For the Respondent : Shri Naresh Kumar Balodia, CIT-DR ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member The above titled appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] dated 23.05.08 are relating to the related assessees (husband wife). Since the issues involved therein are identical in nature, the same are taken together for disposal by this common order. For the sak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the seized paper, letter sent by DCIT central circle-10, letter received from Secretary of the said along with satisfaction recorded by AO were given to ARs of assessee. AO also recorded the statement of Mr. Percy Choudhary, director of KRPL. In his statement Mr. Percy Choudhary has stated that Ms. Perin N. Sanjana, who is Mausi of his father Mr. Sorabjee Choudhary, has sold one property i.e. flat no.304, 3rd floor, Plot No.666, New Orient CHS Ltd., Jehangir Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai to two parties and was also given to the assessee. In view of above AO asked the assessee to explain as to why the difference of ₹ 21.45 lacs (Rs.21 lacs cash paid for flat ₹ 45,000/- paid for furniture) should not be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. Assessee stated that no cash has been paid for the purchase of flat except ₹ 18 lacs paid through cheque. Assessee also stated that DCIT circle 6(3) has not recorded his satisfaction therefore, the proceedings u/s 158BD are bad in law. Secondly, only one loose paper cannot be made. Assessee also placed reliance on many case laws. AO, however, was not satisfied with the above submissions of the assessee. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the facts of the case and detailed submissions made by the appellant. Submissions of the appellant are acceptable. As already discussed appellant has stated that there was no satisfaction of the AO and therefore proceedings initiated against the appellant are bad in law. In this regard, a reference is needed to be made to the letter dated 31-03-2005 of DCIT CC 10 and addressed to ACIT 6(3) AO of the appellant. In the aforesaid letter DCIT CC-10 has, after referring to the search conducted on 21-01-2003 at the residential and business premises of KRPL and the loose paper no. 31 of Annexure A-3 seized from the office of KRPL stated that assessee of DCIT CC has disowned this paper and stated that transactions related to Ms. Parin Masi who is related to Mr. Percy Choudhary. Secretary of the building was summoned under s. 131 who stated that above flat has been sold on 18-03-2002 by Mr. Perin N. Sanjana to Mr. Raymond Nariman Elavia and Mrs. Armaity Raymond Elavia at the consideration of ₹ 18 lacs. It is on the basis of above that DCIT CC 10 has asked the AO to examine the payment of cheque and cash made by above mentioned persons as the case of Mr. Raymond Naniman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd (hereinafter referred to as the AO) below, in my opinion are not sufficient to hold that there was satisfaction on the part of DCIT CC-10. Moreover, as stated by the appellant, letter dated 31-03-2004 speaks of only Mr. Raymond Elavia and AO has bifurcated the income and made addition of the amount of cash paid in the case of two assessees. For the above reasons and the reasons discussed hereinafter on merits of addition I am of the opinion DCIT CC-10 has not recorded his satisfaction as contemplated in the Act and judicial pronouncements and therefore, assessment made by AO in the case of assessee is bad in law. As regards merits of addition on the basis of loose paper and the entries recorded therein same too in my opinion is not justified. Though on loose paper no. 31. the words 'Money received from the sale of flat are written but particulars of flat sold which has been purchased by the assessee are nowhere mentioned on the paper. Appellant along with his wife has purchased flat no. 304, 3rd floot, plot no.666, New Orient CHS Ltd., Jehangir Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai 400 014 from Ms. Perin N. Sanjana. However, on the above paper particulars of the above fl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpt to find out some truth about above paper from Perin N. Sanjana. If the entire deal of sale of fiat was done by Ms. Perin N. Sanjana and her daughter Ms. Sanober Sanjana as stated by Mr. Perin Choudhary (page 4 of assessment order) then under what circumstances the paper reached to the office of KRPL are not forthcoming. In view of above possibility of this paper belonging to some other transactions of sale of flat cannot be ruled out. It is interesting to note here that all the characters involved in the purchase and sale of the flat i.e. appellant and his wife who have purchased the flat and Ms. Perin N. Sanjana who has sold the flat either have denied having made cash payment ₹ 21 lacs or are not available. The appellant has stated that he has not made any cash payment for purchase of flat except ₹ 18 lacs paid through chueque (Page 7 of assessment order). There is no confirmation from Ms. Perin N. Sanjana of having received cash payment. Even Mr. Percy Choudhary does not remember the facts and does not know the appellant and his wife. The above loose paper has been found from the possession of some third person who too is not aware of full facts. For the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently the assessment proceedings under section 158BD are thus liable to be held as null and void. Even on merits, the Ld. CIT(A) has given a reasoned and categorical finding that the searched person was in no way related to the assessee. Even there was no name of the assessee on the seized loose paper. It was stated by Mr. Percy Choudhary, director of M/s. KRPL, the searched party, that the loose paper in question belonged to one Ms. Parin N. Sanjana who was distinctly related to the assessee i.e. maternal aunt of his father who was Canadian citizen. The paper contained some details about the money to be taken to Canada by said Ms. Parin N. Sanjana. No proceeding have been initiated against the said lady Ms. Parin N. Sanjana to whom the alleged document was stated to belong. Neither the name of the assessee has been mentioned on the said document nor the description of the flat in question has been mentioned on the said document. The said document was a dumb document. Even the concerned person, from whom the said document was recovered, had stated that he was not aware of the correctness of the contents of the document. Merely based on the said loose paper, the addition in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
