9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of the documents discovered under any other provision of law, but certainly, not under Section 153A. This goes to the root of the matter. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2578/Del/2015, ITA No.2579/Del/2015, ITA No.2580/Del/2015, ITA No.3274/Del/2015 And ITA No.3113/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2018 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv For The Respondent : Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR. ORDER PER BENCH : ITA No. 2578/Del/2015 This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi dated 20th January, 2015 for the AY 2006-07. 2. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in ITA No. 60/2017 vide order dated 25th July, 2017. He stated that during the course of search proceedings in the premises of Aerens Group, certain material was found and seized which was marked as Annexure-A-32 wherein the details of sales status of Indirapuram Habitat Centre were found showing the name of various persons which included the assessee in the present appeal as well as Mr. Subhash Khattar. The Assessing Officer in the case of Subhash Khattar had made the addition on the basis of said Annexure-A-32 in respect of cash component noted therein. The addition was sustained by the learned CIT(A) but when the matter reached to ITAT, the ITAT deleted the addition with the following finding:- 8. Considering the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Prem Prakash Nagpal (supra) wherein Assessing Officer had made certain additions under sec. 69 of the Act on the basis of the documents found during search at a place of third party which indicated that assessee had purchased a plot by paying consideration in cash, it was held by the Hon ble High Court that the Assessing Officer could not prove by evidence that said documents belonged to the assessee and that any on money transaction had taken place. The documents at the best only showed tentative/projected purchase consideration held the Hon'ble High Court. Again, in the case of CIT vs. Alpha Impact Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been pleased to hold that addition to asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 25.7.2017 upheld the decision of the ITAT with the following finding:- 7. A question was posed to the learned counsel for the Revenue whether in the present case anything incriminating has been found when the premises of the Assessee was searched. The answer was in the negative. The entire case against the Assessee was based on what was found during the search of the premises of the AEZ Group. It is thus apparent on the face of it, that the notice to the Assessee under Section 153 A of the Act was misconceived since the so-called incriminating material was not found during the search of the Assessee's premises. The Revenue could have proceeded against the Assessee on the basis of the documents discovered under any other pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to the builder found recorded on the excel sheet fortifies the probability of investment made in cash. In the case of the appellant, payment is not a random event but repeated in several instances, the sequence of events exhibiting certain pattern, which can be predicted. I find that cheque payments are found recorded in the books of accounts, but the cash payment is not accepted. This is the case of not only the appellant, but also the facts are similar in all the cases whose names are found recorded on this excel sheet. In case of Sh. Subhash Khattar and Lakhotia group of case, pertaining to the amounts found recorded on D.P. Correction sheet.xls, the Assessing Officer made addition to the extent of cash investment made in Indirapuram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is deleted and assessee s appeal is allowed. ITA No. 2579/Del/2015 ITA No. 2580/Del/2015 8. In these two appeals also the additions have been made on the basis of same Annexure-A-32 amounting to ₹ 90,00,000/- and ₹ 60,00,000/- respectively. Both the parties admitted that the facts in these two cases are identical to the facts in the case of Mr. Braham Arenja in ITA No. 2578/Del/2015. For the detailed discussion above in the case of Braham Arenja, we delete the additions in these two cases also. ITA No. 3274/Del/2015 9. In this appeal, the only ground raised is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 36,04,087/- under section 69A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
