9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the original copy of general power of attorney dated 10.10.2003 given by Bhikaji Jesanji Thakor Others in favour of Kantibhai Revabhai Patel. The A.O. found that relevant purchases were belonged to the appellant, therefore, in view of the provision of Section 153C(1) of the IT Act proceeding was initiated by issuing notice dated 04.06.2008. On verification of the various documents found and seized, inventorised as item no.A-1 to 271 and item no.1 to 6 of Annexure O- 1, it was noticed that page no.16 to 25 of A-241 were original copy of power of attorney dated 10.10.2003 given by Bhikaji Jesanji Thakur Others in favour of Kantibhai Revabhai Patel. Further, on verification of page no.38 of A-241, which contained details of sale of land admeasuring 11504 sq. yds @ 1,951/-, it was noticed that an amount of ₹ 81,00,000/- had been shown to be received from Kantibhai Revidas Patel. In his statement (ans. no. 107) Shri Vikas Shah had categorically stated that he had sold half of the land of Dholakuva, i.e. 11504 sq.yds. to Shri Amit Jadeja Others. Further, he had clarified that he had yet to receive ₹ 38,00,000/- from Amit Jadeja Others towards sale proceeds of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of A-241. Thus, after discussing the various case laws and factual position, the ld. A.O. made addition of ₹ 92,00,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who had had deleted the addition by observing as under: I have carefully gone through the submission of the appellant, assessment order order of the Hon. CIT(A)-I, Ahmadabad and I am agreement with the AR that the ratio of the case of Abhel Jadeja (co-purchaser of the appellant) is clearly applicable to the facts of the appellant s case. The relevant portion of the order of Hon. CIT(A) I, Ahmadabad is reproduced below. 6. I have considered the submissions of the appellant and the contents of the remand report, I have also gone through the copies of the relevant seized material and the statement of Shri Vikas Arvindbhai shah. It may b mentioned that the Assessing Officer did not make a separate addition for the alleged receipt of ₹ 44,80,000 as the same has been considered to be covered by the bigger proposed addition of ₹ 91,50,000/- on account of payment of on-money. In other words, the Assessing Officer held that the receipt of Rs,44, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that even if the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the statement made therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is thus seen that while the first part of the section speaks of the relevancy of the entry as evidence, the second part speaks, in a negative way, of its evidentiary value for charging a person with a liability. Book ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as Book for they can be easily detached and replaced. 8. My predecessor in office has after considering the above referred decision in similar circumstances, deleted the addition made in the case of Amit Kantilal Guru which was made based on the seized documents from third person and it was held that no addition could be made on the basis of notings made in the seized documents of third person. In the present case too, entries found from the books/documents of third party, does not conclusively prove that the amounts mentioned in the documents, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears 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 jojntly and as per the documents for purchase winch is registered with the sub-registrar at a value of ₹ 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 ₹ 9 lacs. Finally, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition by stating that in the absence of any other corroborative evidence and in view of the fact that in the remand proceeding also, no further corroborative evidence have been gathered to justify the addition, the addition cannot be made on the basis of presumption and on the basis of the statement of any third party and particularly when seized document was recovered form third party s premises. Considering all these facts, we are of the considered opinion, no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the addition made by the A.O. of ₹ 91.50 lacs on account of alleged on money pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
