9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not in the handwriting of assessee. Such document was undated and noting did not bear any signature and the name appearing therein are not of assessee. No registered document whatsoever was found during the course of search, which was registered in the name of assessee with amount for which addition is made. No efforts whatsoever were made by the AO to bring on record such alleged registered document in the name of assessee more particularly when the AO had vast powers U/s 133(6) to even call for information from Sub-Registrar office. No material was brought on record to prove from which sources assessee had made such alleged investment . AO had drawn inferences, made presumption, relied on surmises and thus made unsustainable additions. Therefore CIT(A) had also after appreciating the facts had rightly concluded that these documents i.e. page 10 of exhibit- 4 of Annexure- AS has no relatibility with any assets in the name of the assessee therefore, the addition made by the AO cannot be based on scribbling on the impugned document - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese documents were inventorized as AnnexureAS, Exhibits- 01 to 05. On page No. 10 of Exhibit 4 of Annexure AS, certain transactions were found recorded. On this page, ₹ 1,20,80,572/- cash and ₹ 6,04,030/- stamp were written. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the explanation of the writings on the said paper. In its reply, the assessee stated that, "…… the same represents conlculation of registration charges or a land if costing ₹ 12080572/- @ 5%=604030/- just estimation no actual transaction….." "...that with regard to page 10 of Annexure A-4 found and seized from the residence of the assessee, as submitted in the explanation tendered before the ADIT (Inv.), the said paper contained the details of the registered documents of some land situated at Rajawas, Tehsil Amer which was purchased by the company M/s Salasar Balaii Developers Pvt. Ltd., a group company of assessee and the entire transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts of the company. The copy of the registered sale deed is enclosed herewith for your ready reference and record..." 5.1 The reply of the assessee has been consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment by assessee in cash in acquisition of some property out of his undisclosed sources (APB-4). During the course of assessment proceedings, Id.A0 sought explanation on such paper. In reply, it was submitted before Id.A0 that the said paper contained the details of the registered documents of some land situated at Rajawas, Tehsil Amer which was purchased by a company M/s Salasar Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd., a group company belonging to assessee and entire transaction was duly recorded in the books of accounts of the said company. Also, copy of registered sale deed was furnished before Id.A0(APB 5-14). Explanation so furnished by the assessee was accepted by Id.A0 and no adverse inference was drawn with respect to such noting which is evident from the assessment order itself. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 21.03.2018 was issued to assessee stating that "On page no. 10 of Exhibit 4 of Annexure AS seized from your residence, certain transactions were found recorded. On this page, ₹ 1,20,80,572/- cash and ₹ 6,04,030/- are written. On perusal of these transactions, it is evident that ₹ 1,20,80,572/- is cash paid by you for purchase of land as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not conclusive more particularly when the land is a commodity which can be identified and cannot be sold without the existence of a legally enforceable document called ownership / title deeds. Ld. AO has miserably failed to prove the ownership of the assessee of the land alleged as purchased by the assessee as a result of search or by making independent enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings and in arbitrary manner has made the addition by holding the same as unexplained investment. From such action of Id. AO, it appears that she was bent upon to make the addition for the amount noted at page 10 of Exhibit 4 of Annexure AS without even trying to cross verify the transactions from the external sources more particularly when assessee has successfully satisfied her with regard to the other notings on the said paper with proper and credible evidences. It is submitted that no effort was made by Ld. AO to corroborate her observations by bringing on record any material which could show that any sort of payment of ₹ 1,26,84,602/- was ever made by the assessee. Thus, she has merely acted on the presumption to this effect only on the basis of the so-called noting wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egislature however does not require any particular form or kind of evidence in addition to entries in books of account, and I take it that any relevant facts which can be treated as evidence within the meaning of the Evidence Act would be sufficient corroboration of the evidence furnished by entries in books of account if true." While concurring with the above observations the other Ld. Judge stated as under: "If no other evidence besides the accounts were given, however strongly those accounts may be supported by the probabilities, and however strong may be the evidence as to the honesty of those who kept them, such consideration could not alone with reference to S. 34, Evidence Act, be the basis of the decree." Thus, Hon'ble Apex Court in above judgment has observed that even if certain transactions are found to be recorded in books of accounts, same have to be corroborated with independent documentary evidence before any liability could be fastened upon assessee, whereas in the instant case, loose paper found is not in the handwriting of assessee and has no authenticity as the same is mere a rough noting without any date and any details mentioned on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luate the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) while dealing with these grounds. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with these grounds in para 5 to 5.1 of its order and the same is reproduced as under:- "5. I have perused the written submissions submitted by the Ld. A/R and the order of AO. I have also gone through the copy of seized document (Annexure AS, exhibit 01 to 05) on the basis of which the Ld. AO has made addition. I have perused the case law cited by the Ld. A/R. 5.2 For the sake of ready reference the scanned portion of document on the basis of which the Ld. AO has made addition is as under: For the sake of ready reference the front and back side of the page is annexed as annexure to this order. 5.3 The Ld. AO has added the figures 12080572 (cash) and 604030 (stamp) as unexplained investment in some property. The Ld. A/R on the other hand submitted that the transaction have absolute no relateability with the appellant or any investment done by the appellant. Before the scribbling or transaction are analyzed on this page it would be worthwhile to refer what constitute a seized document. Among many judgment available a comprehensive discussion on what constitute a dumb docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only when the document is a speaking one. The document should speak either out of itself or in the company of other material found on investigation and/or in the search. The document should be clear and unambiguous in respect of all the four components of the charge of tax. If it is not so, the document is only a dumb document. No charge can be levied on the basis of a dumb document. A document found during the course of a search must be a speaking one and without any second interpretation, must reflect all the details about the transaction of the assessee in the relevant assessment year. Any gap in the various components for the charge of tax must be filled up by the Assessing Officer through investigations and correlations with other material found either during the course of search or on investigations. The document was bereft of necessary details about the year of transaction, ownership, nature of transaction, necessary code for deciphering the figures. The Assessing Officer presumed that the transaction belonged to the financial year. 1988-89 relevant to the assessment year 1989-90, that the figures mentioned in the document were advances made by the assessee, that the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 10 of exhibit 4 of Annexure-AS and as dumb document. After considering the entirety of the fact, documents and circumstances of the present case we are of the considered view that a charge can be levied on the basis of documents only, when the document is a speaking one. The document should speak either out of itself or in the company of other material found on investment and/or in the search. The document should be clear and unambiguous in respect of all the four components of the charge of tax. If it is not so, the document can only be considered as a dumb document. Therefore, no charge can be levied on the basis of a dumb document. 8. The ld. CIT(A) after perusal of page no. 10 of exhibit 4 of Annexure-AS and after relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Jabalpur in the case of ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan 295 ITR (AT) 352 has clearly held that the documents though seized from the premises of the assessee. There is no date or even narration like 'Rs' before the scribbling so evident. And there is no correlation with these scribbling with any transactions, disclosed or undisclosed, with other seized material or regular books. It was also observed that nor there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
