9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n only on the basis of said unsigned deed and no corroborative evidences have been brought on record to show that purchase transaction was executed by the assessee at the rate mentioned in the computer of Sh. Naresh Sharma. Assessing Officer has not carried out any inquiries from the seller of the land also. The assessee cannot be penalised merely on the basis of an unsigned deed found from the premises of a third-party. In our opinion, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and we do not find any error in the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 4282/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2021 - O.P. Kant, Member (A) And Kuldip Singh, Member (J) For the Appellant : Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as return filed in pursuant to notice under section 148 of the Act. The objection filed by the assessee against issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act was disposed of by the Assessing Officer. After considering submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 1,90,50,000/- as payment made from undisclosed sources and assessed total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,08,35,840/- in his order dated 09/03/2015 passed in terms of section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submission. The assessee submitted that addition has been made on the basis of a draft deed, a soft copy of which was seized from the computer o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,00,00,000 + 1,90,50,000 = 2,90,50,000/- as per the seized document. The appellant has submitted that it is engaged in construction business. Consequent to the search operation of AKN Group, a search operation was carried out on the business and residence premises of Sh. Naresh Gupta, a document deed writer of the properties in AKN Group. During the course of search operation digital data was seized from which an agreement was found giving details of transaction of purchase of residential plot by the assessee company M/s. I.G. Builders Promoters Pvt. Ltd. from Smt. Damyanti Sharma, Smt. Neelam Dhingra, Smt. Vishwa Kanta Sharma and Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma. It is in respect of land bearing no. 387 in Block A situated at Defence Colony ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the letter dated 13.03.2015 from Sh. Naresh Gupta which is reproducing here:- This is in continuance of my statement dated 16.02.2015, given to you. I further state that I am in to profession of providing consultancy services to my various clients, regarding Real Estate Matters. During the course of consultancy, I do draft various documents under the instruction of Clients. Sometimes under the instruction of seller, sometimes under the instructions of Purchaser and sometimes under the instruction of Real estate Agents. I do not remember as to under whom instruction I drafted the document picked up from my hard disk. That during the course of drafting of various instruments, data from the Master Document is copied and sometime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rafting the documents on the instruction of parties/builders/dealer. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court and various other Tribunals is that as per section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 loose sheets of papers are not to be considered as book and here deed seized is in admissible as evidence and cannot be relied upon. Addition made on unsigned deed is not justified and Revenue has to bring some corroborative evidence to show that the document seized actually show some transaction and the assessee earned income from undisclosed sources. The Revenue can tax only those receipts, which must have been proved to be income in the hands of recipient. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to be income. Therefore where they assess a receipt, they must find it to be income and they cannot do assess they have some material to justify their findings. In Pushkar Narain Saraf Vs CIT [1990] 86 CTR (All) 110:[1990]183 ITR 388 (All): TC 61R. 433, the Court has held that provisions of section 132(4A) is available only for the limited purpose of seizure. In the course of block assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer label the entries as income under Provisions of Act or deeming Sections 68, 69, 69A and 69C etc. but the burden is on the Department to prove that the entries represent undisclosed income of the assessee. Therefore, after considering all the above facts the unsigned seized document does not show the true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
