9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to any property alleged to be mentioned at the location in the seized document was impounded during the course of search proceedings, nor the revenue authority reported any such instance when the enquiries were made by the A.O. from those authorities and no such sale deeds were found where in the name of the assessee was appearing as power of attorney holder. During the course of search no valuable or cash was found or seized except 200 gms of gold and no document in the form of agreement to sell or registered sale deed had been found evidencing any unaccounted purchase / sale by the assessee. This fact has been categorically stated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5 at page 37 of the impugned order. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in presuming that certain transactions were carried on by the assessee particularly when he himself admitted that no documents in the form of agreement to sell or registered sale deed had been found evidencing any unaccounted purchase / sale by the assessee. A.O. made the additions only on the basis of certain documents on which there were some notings but neither the possession nor the ownership of any property mentioned in those loo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting addition of ₹ 1,34,37,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in properties. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of ₹ 20,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in properties. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of ₹ 32,50,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in properties. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of ₹ 34,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in properties. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of ₹ 1,42,28,500/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in properties. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of ₹ 21,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in properties. 11. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts mentioned in the assessment order as well as in the remand report in respect of all the additions mentioned above. 12.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evance in the Departmental appeal as well as in assessee s appeal relates to the deletion / addition on account of alleged unexplained investment in properties. 6. The grievance of the Department in its appeal relates to the deletion of additions while the assessee is in appeal against the sustenance of addition made by the A.O. 7. Since the Ld. CIT(A) dealt with all the additions sustained and the deletions made simultaneously in the impugned order therefore we will also decide all the issues simultaneously. 8. The facts related to the issues under consideration, in brief are that a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee and his family members on 18/02/2011. Accordingly a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 11/09/2012 declaring the same income of ₹ 28,74,080/- which was declared in the original return of income. 8.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. made copies of seized material available to the assessee who produced the books o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erties. The assessee file letter dated 11.03.2013 stating there in that no such property was purchased and it was only dumb document. The reply of the assessee has been considered and I find no merit in that because the specific figures along with the area of land and situation of property is also mentioned. As such it can not be treated as a dumb document. Since the assessee has failed to explain the source of these investments in the properties these amounts are added back to the total income of the assessee. Further the assessee has sold land out of this total of 7 acres of the land situated at Hans Nagar, the assessee has sold land measuring 6622 sq. yard for ₹ 1,66,32,800/- and land measuring 2200 sq. yards has been sold for ₹ 45 lacs. It is also revealed that 2 acres have been sold at ₹ 1,66,00,000/- i.e. at the purchase price itself. The profit earned on the property is worked out as under: Total area sold 8822 Sq. yards Sale price as mentioned above ₹ 2,11,32,800/- Cost price @ 1600/- per sq. yard ₹ 1.41.15,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchased and it was only dumb document. The reply of the assessee has been considered and I find no merit in that because the specific figures along with the area of land and situation of property is also mentioned. As such it can not be treated as a dumb document. From the above said detail it can be concluded that the assessee has made investment of ₹ 7,97,17,000/- in various lands and profit of ₹ 6,51,97,000/- on the sale of the various lands situated at Bathinda. Since the assessee has failed to disclose the source of investment, the investment of ₹ 7,97,17,000/- plus profit earned on the sales out of above property amounting to ₹ 6,51,97,000/- i.e. total of ₹ 14,49,14,000/- are added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA is initiated separately for concealing the particulars of income. (c)Document No.28 of ISB-8 This document mentions the details of land transaction done by assessee with regard to 23155 sq. yards of land situated at Lai Singh Basti, Bathinda. From the details on this document it can be concluded that the assessee made investment of ₹ 3,92,75,215/- in the purchase of land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18,265/- from the sale of property at Village Jai Singh Wala and Mulatani Road, Bathinda. Since the assessee has failed to give any explanation the amounts of ₹ 4,67,50,000/-., ₹ 7,05,26000/-( investment) and Rs.l,74,18,265/-(Profit) total ₹ 13,46,94,265/- are to be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee, (d) (1) Vide this office letter dated 27.02.2013 the assessee was specifically requested to give the complete details regarding source of investments on these properties. The assessee filej letter dated 11.03.2013 stating there in that no such property was purchased and it was only dumb document. The reply of the assessee has been considered and I find no merit in that because the specific figures along with the area of land and situation of property is also mentioned. As such it can not be treated as a dumb document. From the above said detail it can be concluded that the assessee has made investment of ₹ 7,05,26,000/-and ₹ 4,67,50,000/- in various lands and profit of ₹ 1,74,18,265/- on the sale of the various lands situated at Bathinda. Since the assessee has failed to disclose the source of investment, the investment of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted to give the complete details regarding source of investments on these properties. The assessee filed letter dated 11.03.2013 stating there in that no such property was purchased and it was only dumb document. The reply of the assessee has been considered and I find no merit in that because the specific figures along with the area of land and situation of property is also mentioned. As such it can not be treated as a dumb document. Because the assessee has failed to explain the source of investments, as such the same is added back to the total income of the assessee i.e. ₹ 20lacs. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA is initiated separately for concealing the particulars of income. (q)Document No.7 of ISB-11 (1) This page has two parts, on one part there is mention regarding some investment of ₹ 35crores however there is totaling mistake and exact amount comes to ₹ 32.5crores. Since the assessee has failed to explain the contents of this document, for the sake of natural justice and to be fair the investment is taken at ₹ 32.5crores. Vide this office letter dated 27.02.2013 the assessee was specifically requested to give the complete details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - c/f ₹ 7,50,000/- ₹ 1,42,28,500/- Vide this office letter dated 27.02.2013 the assessee was specifically requested to give the complete details regarding source of payments. The assessee file letter dated 11.03.2013 stating there in that it was only dumb document. The reply of the assessee has been considered and I find no merit in that because the specific figures regarding various payments, as such it can not be treated as a dumb document. Because the assessee has failed to explain the source of payments, the same is added back to the total income of the assessee i.e. ₹ 1,42,28,500/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA is initiated separately for concealing the particulars of income. (i)Document No.4 of ISB-11 This document mentions the details of payments made to various persons of ₹ 21,00,000/- on 26.10.2010. Vide this office letter dated 27.02.2013 the assessee was specifically requested to give the complete details regarding source of payments. The assessee file letter dated 11.03.2013 stating there in that it was only dumb docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a proposal / estimate and that the use of word invest clearly demonstrated this fact. It was further submitted as under: i) From a close reading of the document, it can never be referred that the assessee has made the investment of ₹ 7,97,17,000/-, because the notings mentioned therein is notan investment, but the word has been mentioned as Invest and invest means to be invested and it is not that the assessee has made the investment. ii). There is no mention of the land area or whether this paper relates to any dealings in immovable property, which had taken place or not is not clear. iii). If we go by the basis of Assessing Officer, then also it is very clear that it is mere proposal/estimate or certain projection, because the word mentioned at Page 27 are interest and loss and which has been interpreted as investment by the Assessing Officer and which is factually incorrect. iv). Also, the basis of making the addition as per mind of the Assessing Officer was to make an exorbitant addition, which is borne out from the fact that the total investment which he has taken and the total sales have been added. This is again is an incorrect application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord the basis of working out unaccounted income / investment the A.O. submitted his report dt. 06/01/2014 and the relevant portion of the said report read as under: ii) The notings on page no.27 of ISB-8 are with regard to sale of various properties amounting to ₹ 6,51,97,000/- which has not been disclosed by the assessee in the return of income. Similarly, there are notings on this page regarding investment totaling ₹ 7,97,17,000/- for which details, such as name of persons and the amount are available on this page. During the course of assessment preceding the assessee had failed to disclose the identity of these persons and investment made in various properties. On the top of this page, it has been written Jai Singh Wala . This shows that the property might be situated in Jai Singh Wala. Further the transactions are running into crores against some property which has not been disclosed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings just to avoid inquiries/verifications by the department. The plea of the assessee that it was only proposal which did not materialized is a vague explanation because during the assessment proceedings he did not specify th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A.O. was also directed to make inquiries with the land revenue authorities in the geographical locations recorded in the seized document. The report of the enquiries was submitted by the A.O. vide letter dt. 27/01/2014 which read as under: In continuation of remand report submitted in the above case by this office vide letter no.976-77 dated 06.01.2014, further report is being submitted as under:- As per your directions Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar was called in this office and his statements were recorded on 21.01.2014. All the seized documents on the basis of which additions were made during assessment proceedings confronted to him and he was required to give explanation of the entries against in these documents. On all these entries in the seized record the assessee stated that these were only projection. When asked to specify the land for which this projections were made or the name of the person with whom projections were made, the assessee replied that the matter is very old and he did not remember any such land or the person (refer Q.no.2). Even regarding specific amounts written on these documents, the assessee still stated them to be projections (refer Q.no.3). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue regarding the additions made by the AO on account of alleged undisclosed investment and sale of immovable properties was discussed with your goodself. The complete details of investment in purchase of properties during the A.Y. 2005- 06 to 2011-12 was filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings alongwith the source of investment and no addition has been made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment in any immovable property on the basis of any document/purchase deed/agreement seized during the course of search or otherwise. Similarly the evidence regarding sale of properties has been filed and no addition has been made by the AO. The investment in immovable properties has been disclosed under the head fixed assets in the personal balance sheet filed during the course of assessment proceedings and the profit if any arising from sale of any asset has been declared under the head capital gains. No property was sold by the assessee after development and plotting of the same and there is no evidence in the seized record that any such activity was carried out by the assessee. It was explained in the attested affidavit filed before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,73,444/- for A.Y. 2011-12 and ₹ 6,32,00,000/- for A.Y. 2007-08 merely on the basis of notings in the seized records shows that the assessment framed by the AO is a typical case of assessment based summarizes and conjectures. The above said cases are only examples and the detailed submissions on all the additions made by the AO has already been submitted before your goodself and discussed. In view of the above stated facts, it is most humbly prayed that the additions made by the AO on account of the alleged unexplained investments made by the assessee in the immovable properties or the profits earned from sale of properties may kindly be deleted. 9.6 The assessee further stated that the notings on the seized documents were only projections and proposals which did not materialize or rough notings. The relevant submissions for the issue under consideration furnished by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), were as under: Sr. Page No. Interpretation by the A.O. Comments 1. 25 and 26 of ISB 8 (Page 2 of assessment order) Addition of ₹ 112317600 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against the amounts of @ 2400/- and 2800/- has been mentioned in the document. All these facts proves that the noting on this document are only projections and estimations otherwise the complete details of the transactions would have been noted 2 Page 27 of ISB 8 Addition of ₹ 144914000/- (Page 3 of the assessment order) (₹ 65197000/- + ₹ 79717000/-) The sale word has been used on this loose slip and under the same profit 1 acre and 2 acres has also been mentioned total of ₹ 65197000/- has been written ₹ 79717000/- has been interpreted as investment on the basis of noting on this loose slip The notings does not lead to any conclusion because profits of ₹ 937000/- and ₹ 910000/- noted on this document and clearly legible and reproduced by the AO in the assessment order cannot be the sales. The totaling sales proves that only estimates. The A3 has made addition of ₹ 65197000/- despite the fact that the amount of ₹ 16600000/- sale Hans Nagar has been also mentioned on page 26 of ISB 8 and profit 937000/-has also been mentioned on page 30 of ISB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order) (₹ 46750000/- + ₹ 70526000/- + ₹ 17418265/-) The noting of 5.5 acres and 21.2 kanal at Jai Singh Wala on this loose slip has been taken as investment. The notings of ₹ 70526000/- has been taken as investment at Multania Road and profit of ₹ 17418265/- has been computed for which no details have been given in the assessment order but the same has been given in the remand report. There is no notings on this loose slip that whether this transaction of purchase or sale but the same ahs been treated as investment in property at Jai Singh Wala. There are no details of sale of this property in the seized record and this amount has also been mentioned on page 27 for which separate addition has been made. The total land was 27746.80 sq. yrds but the profit has been computed for only 13835 sq. yrds and there is no discussion of balance land of 13911 sq. yrds. Which shows the non application of mind by the A.O. and also the fact that the notings on this page are only projections and estimates ₹ 17953000/- has also been mentioned on page 27 of the seized record for which separate addition has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en either in the assessment order or the remand report. 8. Page 6 of ISB 21 (Page 7 of the assessment order) Addition of ₹ 14228500/- Rough notings on this page has been treated as some payments made to various payments. The A.O. has not made any efforts either in the assessment order or remand report to give the nature of payments but have made the addition without application of mind. 9. Page 4 ISB 21 Page 7 8 of assessment order Addition of ₹ 2100000/- The total of 0.21 has been extrapolated as 2100000/- as payment of ₹ 2100000/- The figure 0.21 has been extrapolated as payment of 2100000/- without application of mind by the A.O. or giving the nature of payment either in the assessment order of in the remand report. 9.7 On the basis of the aforesaid submissions it was stated that the notings on the said loose slip were only projections and proposals for which estimates were noted but did not materialize into any transaction of actual purchase / sale resulting into any unaccounted inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s established with certain reasonable certainty. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the judicial view on whether a particular seized document was speaking enough or not has been expressed in number of cases. The reference was made to the following case laws: Gurlal Singh Grewal Vs. ACIT, Cirlce-VI, Ludhiana, ITA No. 1208/Chd/2011 order dt. 29/08/2012 9.9 The Ld. CIT(A) discussed the facts in the case of ACIT Vs. Satyapal Wassan (supra) decided by the ITAT Jabalpur on the issue of categorization of a particular document as dumb document wherein the A.O. relied upon the documents contained in the following details: G.S 5 Ravi 2 Kotli 2 Umiya 2 Swamy 5 Ganpath 1-1/2 Radheshyam Shyamjibhai 1 Dari .30 Lamba BHu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s year, income-tax shall be charged accordingly. (2) In respect of income chargeable under sub-s. (1), income-tax shall be deducted at the source or paid in advance, where it is so deductible or payable under any provision of this Act. From a reading of above section, we find following components which enter into the concept of taxation. The first is the taxable event which attracts the levy. The second is the person on whom the levy is imposed and who is obliged to pay the tax. The third is the assessment year in which charge of income-tax is levied. The fourth is the total income of the previous year and the fifth is the rate or rates at which tax is to be imposed. The rates are prescribed in the annual Finance Act. Therefore, this component has no value in determining total income on the basis of seized document. Our view in this regard is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Saran Ganga Saran vs. CST (1985) 155 ITR 144 (SC) wherein it was held that for the purpose of charging to tax, there should be four components to be satisfied. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the relevant headnotes from that decision : The componen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for recovery of such advances; whether there are any other related document found in the search; whether any person recorded in the impugned documents had, otherwise any other transaction with the assessee recorded in the regular books. In the present case, the AO has simply presumed that the alleged figures are advances without there being any material on record to support such presumption. About the second component the charging section clearly spells out that income-tax will be levied on the total income of a person. The person must be the one as defined in s. 2(31). It must be clearly established who is that person whether he is the one from whose possession the document is recovered or someone else. Merely because a document is recovered from the body of a person, does not automatically lead to the inference that it belonged to him. It is only for certain purposes that presumption under s. 132(4A) has been enacted and not for all purposes including the assessment. Further, this presumption is not conclusive. It is rebuttable. If the assessee has, by way of affidavit denied ownership of the document and, further, Smt. NirmalKanta, wife of Sri DharamvirWassan admitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Balchand 1977 CTR (Raj) 219 : (1980) 124 ITR 111 (Raj) observed as under : The evidence which satisfied the Tribunal was the facts and circumstances of the case. As pointed out above what quantum of evidence would rebut a legal presumption in a given set of facts does not admit of any rigid rule. The evidence may be direct or circumstantial or both and a mere statement of the assessee may be enough in some cases. It does not raise a question of law. The assessee filed his affidavit and also the affidavit of Smt. NirmalaKantaWassan wife of Dharamvir Wassan to the effect that impugned document contained transaction belonging to Shri DharamvirWassan. It could not be said that onus did not shift to the AO. In our considered view, the affidavits, even if regarded as selfserving do not lose their evidentiary value if there is no material contrary to the averments made in the affidavit. When sufficient other material is found in the search which corroborates that document belonged to the assessee, then denial of such ownership merely by affidavits will be meaningless and they do not carry any weight to rebut the presumption lying on the assessee. In the present case, nothi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The above discussion also leads us to infer that a charge on the basis of document can be levied 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 speaking from the document should be loud, clear and unambiguous in respect of all the four components as described above. If it is not so, then document is only a dumb document. No charge can be levied on the basis of a dumb document. We also notice that the AO could not establish that the assessee has charged any interest, if at all the impugned figures were advances. There is no material to show that the AO has taxed these advances as wealth of the assessee. There is also no material to show that the assessee has taken.any action to recover the money from the alleged debtors. It is not believable that the assessee or his legal heir would forget their money lying with the debtors. By one way or other, he or his legal heir would try to recover the money. The Department has not done anything to find out that after the search in April, 1995. We are also unable to satisfy ourselves as to why the alleged transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case also, it s not established that document No. 7 contained any amount. In D.N Kamani (HUF) vs. Dy. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (Pat)(TM) 504 : (2000) 241 ITR 85 (Pat)(TM)(AT), it was held by the Third Member that where document did not reflect any on-money taken in respect of some other flats sold, then additions on that basis could not be made. It means that recording of receipt of on-money in respect of one flat can result into addition in respect of that flat only and on that basis no further addition could be made in respect of other flats sold by the assessee as the document did not reflect receipt of such on-money in respect of others. To that extent, the document was treated as dumb document. In Steel Home vs. Asstt. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (Del) 393 : (1999) 69 ITD 240 (Del), the Tribunal held that where the entries recorded on a document found in the course of the search could not be related to the assessee, then any mentioning of low withdrawals or purchase of plots or the mentioning of stock or the figures of stock could not be added as the assessee's income as they could not be related to the assessee. It shows that it is very important for the AO to find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year. Any gap in various components as mentioned in s. 4 of the IT Act must be filled up by the AO through investigations and correlations with other material found either during the course of the search or on investigation. As a result, we hold that document No. 7 is a non-speaking document. 9.11 The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the detailed analysis of the judicial view on whether a particular document is sufficiently descriptive/speaking or dumb has to be applied to the facts of the case under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed the document found, sized and relied upon by the A.O. to make the impugned additions which are reproduced at page no. 49 to 59 of the impugned order, for the cost of repetition the same are not reproduced herein. 9.12 The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the common feature amongst all the documents was that there was a general specification of location of some property and recording of certain amounts as purchases / sales and resultant figures as profits as well. However no specific dates were recorded on the seized documents neither there was any detail of receipts /payments either in cash or in cheque on a sequential basis. He further ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stood on their own without any corroboration to show that certain transactions of purchase / sales of land had taken place or not. 9.15 The Ld. CIT(A) observed that pages at serial no. 25,26,27,28,29 and 30 of Annexure ISB-8 were all interrelated in terms of their impact. The Ld. CIT(A) pointed out that documents at S.No. 25 and 26 records certain transactions pertaining to Hans Nagar and sales thereof and document at S.No. 27 was a summary of funds available on a given date with the assessee on account of different projects and also record below investments in the same from different persons like Shri Aulakh and Shri I.S. Brar etc. He further pointed out that the documents at S.No. 27 talks of sale of Jai Singh Wala to the tune of ₹ 4,67,50,000/- and the same transaction was recorded at page no. 29 in a more descriptive way as followed: Jai Singh Wala acres @ 15 = 1,27,50,000/- Back 21-2 @ 16 = 3,40,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h had actually happened as the entire recordings seem to be a proposal wherein even the working was erroneous in terms of calculation, such account of working could be accepted in respect of any proposal by the assessee and therefore no cognizance of the same could be taken in the absence of any corroborative evidence. He further observed that the addition made to the tune of ₹ 35 Crores at page no. 7 of Annexure ISB-11was not warranted as the recordings on the impugned seized documents did not convey whether it was investment or sales or record of amounts advanced or record of amounts received. The description on the left hand side also did not record any details to make complete picture so as to lead to addition of an amount of ₹ 35 Crores. He was of the view that the documents could be clearly described as dumb document because of the absence of vital features to permit the same to be taken as the basis for an addition. Similar was the case with the figure of 34 written on the same page on the right hand side. 9.18 The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the addition made by the A.O. to the tune of ₹ 1,42,28,500/- on the basis of seized document at page no. 6 was rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unexplained investment at ₹ 7,97,17,000/- on which profit of ₹ 6,51,97,000/- was earned by the assessee therefore the addition of ₹ 14,49,14,000/- was rightly made by the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the same. 11.1 It was further stated that he document no. 28 of ISB-8 mentioned the transactions relating to 23155 Sq. Yards of land situated at Lal Singh Basti, Bathinda for which investment of ₹ 3,92,75,215/- was made out of which the land measuring 14566 Sq. Yards was sold for ₹ 3,97,10,800/- by making the profit of ₹ 1,50,06,864/- therefore the addition of ₹ 5,42,82,079/- (₹ 3,92,75,215/- + 1,50,06,864/-) was rightly made by the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly deleted the same. 11.2 The Ld. CIT DR stated that the document number 29 of ISB-8 had the description of transactions in two lands measuring 5.5 ace and 21 kanal 2 marla situated at village Jai Singh Wala Multani Road, Bathinda. Thus the specific figures of investment alongwith area of the land were mentioned on the seized papers therefore the addition on account of unexplained investment of ₹ 4,67,50,000/- ₹ 7,05,26,000/- along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are speaking documents containing meticulous details of various transactions having sufficient description of unaccounted amounts in respect of all the additions made. b) The CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts that the assessee failed to disclose the source of amounts mentioned in seized documents and also failed to prove the nature of documents seized. The seized documents were confronted to the assessee, however, the assessee gave vague replies to the questions asked. Such vague replies of the assessee are listed below; These are only projections. The matter is very old and the assessee did not remember any such land or the person. Regarding the amount shown as paid on some seized documents, the assessee replied that the amount might have been required to be paid. The figures were only estimates. When asked that if does not remember the location of the land and the name of person who made the proposal for sale of land in all the cases mentioned in the seized documents, then he should tell only the names of 3 persons or locations of land for which offers for sale of land was received by him. The assessee replied that the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been getting large numbers of proposals however, strangely none of them materialized. Ql l : On page 26 of this annexure also reveals that amount of ₹ 4.87 Lacs has been invested in Hans Nagar the same amount was written as paid on page 25. Please explain. Ans: It was only proposed investment which did not mature. The same figures find mention on 2 pages, the assessee still stated that these were only proposals. The assessee was very sure that these were only proposals but did not remember any other details like name of the proposer, time period of receiving the proposals. Q16: On lower part of page 27 there is noting regarding investment of ₹ 6,29,17,000/- and the names of the persons are also mentioned. Please tell the identification of these entries and persons who invested the amounts. Ans: The word written is invest not invested. Hence the figures written on this page are all the proposals of investment. However no investment has been made by me or my family ................ Q19: At this page the word 1200 sold at ₹ 25,00,000/- is written and below this left land 4308 sq. yd. is written. Please explain this. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entries. k) The CIT (A) has described the entire ISB-11 as dumb document as the recording on the document do not convey whether it is investment or sales or record amounts advanced or received. This implies that the CIT (A) did agree that the amount mentioned represent sale/investment/payments/receipts. All these are unaccounted transactions and require to be added. It was the duty of the assessee to properly explain the contest of the document. However, despite number of opportunities, the assessee had been non-cooperative. As such the AO has rightfully made the additions. 1) The CIT (A) vide para 18 of his order has stated that additions made by the AO of ₹ 1,42,28,500/- on the basis of page no. 6 of ISB-21 are related to recordings at page no. 7. The same figures have been repeated again. The AO has made addition of figures appearing at Page No. 6 only. The repetition of figures at page 7 has not been added. Repetition only proves that the figures are not mere estimates but actual transactions. It is prayed that the order of the AO may please be restored. 12. In his rival submissions the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the beginning of the remand report it has been stated by the AO that the assessee invested ₹ 4,77,00,000/- in the properties but in the assessment order at the end of the remand report the same has been treated as sale of 12 plots. (ix) The notings of this document are only projection for converting the land into plots. (x) That while deciding the appeal the CIT(A) discussed at how a document seized has to be interpreted for the purpose of computing the undisclosed income has relied on the order of this Hon'ble bench of Gurlal Singh Grewal vs. ACIT dated 29.08.2012. Kindly refer to para 9-11 on page 16 17 of the appellate order. (xi) The CIT(A) has further relied on the order of Jabalpur Bench of the IT AT in the case of ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan the detailed findings of the Hon'ble bench have been discussed in para 12-14 of the appellate order. (xii) According to the Jabalpur Bench of the Hon'ble IT AT the document should speak either of itself or in the company of other material found on investigation and/or in the search four components have been laid down to put the seized document in the category of speaking document as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ani (HUF) vs. Dy. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (Pat)(TM) 504: (2000) 241 ITR 85 (Pat)(TM)(AT) (iv) Steel Home vs. Asstt. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (Del) 393: (1999) 69 ITD 240 (Del) (v) Smt. Neena Syal vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (Chd) 516: (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (vi) Ashwani Kumar vs. ITO (1991) 42 TTJ (Del) 644: (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (vii) Elite Developers vs. Dy. CIT (2000) 68 TTJ (Nag) 616: (2000) 73 ITD 379 (Nag) (viii) Kishanchand Sobhrajmal Vs. Asstt. CIT(1991) 42 TTJ (JP) 423 : (1992) 41 ITD 97 (Jp) (ix) Agrawal Motors vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Jab) 130 : (1999) 68 ITD 407 (Jab) The CIT (A) after discussing the facts findings of the orders of the different benches of the IT AT held in para 15 that: (i) There is no mention of the location of the property concern also the buyers/sellers, the mention of ward no.28 on top of the page has been presumed by the Assessing Officer to be the location where such transactions could have happened. However the perusal of the entire diary reveals that the appellant has recorded at page no.25 of the same diary various wards of the city which apparently means that same have been recorded for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007 therefore even the said page of the diary did not relate to the year under consideration and the A.O. presumed the nothings 25/2 a 25.02.2007 which was factually incorrect. It was contended that no addition could have been made without any corroborated evidence as has been held by the ITAT Chandigarh B Bench in the case of Shri Mana Singla Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 229/Chd/2013, for the A.Y. 2006-07 vide order dt. 07/05/2019. It was stated that it had not been denied that the assessee was a director in the real estate company where there were purchase and sale transactions, certain proposals were received in the case of company and certain transactions were noted down in a very rough manner. It was stated that the A.O. made detailed enquiries during the remand proceedings from the Land Revenue Authorities which revealed that there was no purchase and sales of immovable property by the assessee or his family members, this fact has been mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 29 of the impugned order. 13.2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the course of search no document in the form of agreement to sell or registered sale deed had been found evidencing in un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record that neither any Power of Attorney relating to any property, alleged to be mentioned at the location in the seized documents was impounded during the course of search proceedings and during the course of enquiries from revenue authorities by the A.O. no such registered Power of Attorney was reported by the revenue authority and that even if it was to be presumed that there was some Power of Attorney then the name of such Power of Attorney holder was to be mentioned in the sale deed but name of the assessee appeared nowhere. It was pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) in para 9 on page 37 of the impugned order clearly mentioned that the search in the case of the appellant was carried out on 18/02/2011 wherein no cash or any valuable except 200 gms of gold has been seized. Further, no documents in the form of agreement to sell or registered sale deed had been found evidencing any unaccounted purchases and sales by the assessee. 13.5 It was stated that all the purchases or sales which were made by the assessee were disclosed to the Department, reference was made to page no. 4 to 10 of the assessee s compilation which are the copies of the purchase and sale made by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose notings, nowhere name of the assessee was mentioned. According to the assessee those notings were rough estimate by the company in which the assessee was a Director. In the instant case, the A.O. on the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) made the enquiries from the revenue authorities of Bhatinda. The result of those enquiries had been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 25 of the impugned order wherein it has been mentioned that the Sub Registrar cum Tehsildar Bhatinda, in response to the letter written by the A.O. dt. 04/12/2013 regarding purchase / sale of property by the assessee and his family members during the period from 01/04/2009 to 31/03/2011, replied vide letter no. 575 dt. 12/12/2013 that the assessee had sold 35 Kanal of land in Village Jai Singh Wala on 05/06/2009 and mother of the assessee namely Smt. Jaswinder Kaur W/o Shri Karnail Singh also sold land measuring 32 canal 14 Marla in Village Jai Singh Wala on 05/06/2009 and no other property was purchased or sold during the period 01/04/2009 to 31/03/2011by the assessee or his family member. In the present case it is noticed that the A.O. in his remand report stated that it is the modus-operandi of the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slips could be proved to be belonging to the assessee, therefore keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid case, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee. 14.2 On a similar issue the ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. SNJ Distillers Pvt. Ltd. 87 ITR (Trib) 540 (Chennai) held as under; Statements recorded under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are a vital tool in the hands of the income-tax authorities in their thrust to establish certain factual and legal positions. Admission is an extremely important piece of evidence and it is admissible against its makers, but a statement recorded during the course of search or survey is an important piece of evidence if it is supported by corroborative evidence. If the contents recorded in the statement are not supported by corroborative evidence, solely on the basis of the statement recorded during the course of search no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. more particularly when the statement has been retracted with a sworn affidavit on the ground that it was given under mental pressure and disturbed state of mind. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion that the document pertains to asst. yr. 2008-09. Considering these facts in totality the additions made by the AO are without any corroborative evidence brought on record, therefore, there is no hesitation in deleting the addition. 14.4 In the present case also there were certain notings on various documents / loose papers found during the course of search which are placed at page no. 49 to 59 of the impugned order, the word used in some of those documents was invest not the investment which is apparent from the aforesaid pages reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. So there is no force in this contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee that those were the proposals to invest and no investment was actually made, this fact has categorically been mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order at page no. 25 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) had mentioned that a letter was written on 04/12/2013 to the Sub Registrar cum Tehsildar, Bhatinda regarding purchase and sale of property by the assessee and his family members, in the reply dt. 12/12/2013 to the said letter, it had been stated that the assessee had sold 35 Kanal of land in village Jai Singh Wala on 05/06/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he name of the assessee was found during the course of search. We therefore considering the totality of the facts are of the view that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A)amounting to ₹ 6,51,97,000/- was not justified as the same was made by the A.O. only on the basis of presumption. Accordingly the aforesaid addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. 15. In ITA No. 455/Chd/2014 for the A.Y. 2007-08 i.e; the appeal by the Department wherein following grounds have been raised: 1(a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 6.32 crore made on account of undisclosed income of the assessee. 1(b). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts mentioned in the assessment order as well as in the remand report. 1(c) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts that the seized document was not dumb document rather this was speaking document containing meticulous detail of various transactions having sufficient description of unaccounted amounts. 1(d) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
