9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. Unexplained unsecured loan - assessee before AO failed to furnish the desired documents - HELD THAT:- The assessee could not submit the necessary details as the same were not available at the time of the assessment and the Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that in absence of the bank statement and the income tax returns the genuineness and the credit worthiness of the parties are not established - we find that in the appellate proceedings, all details like the bank statements, income tax returns etc. were filed before the ld. CIT(A) with an application under rule 46A. CIT(A) sent all the papers to the Ld. A.O. for his comment and the remand report. CIT(A) after considering the submissions and facts of the case deleted the additions on the ground that the assessee has furnished all details such as, the documents relating to the identity, credit worthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction. Thus, prima facie the liability of the assessee to prove the genuineness, identity and credit worthiness stands discharged. We also find that the necessary papers to establish genuineness of the transaction were filed and the assessee had proved beyon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the Revenue are directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Bhopal [in short Ld. CIT(A)] dated 05.3.2020 11.3.2020, respectively, which are arising out of the assessment orders dated 18.3.2016 18.3.2016, respectively, framed by ACIT, Central-II, Bhopal. M/s. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal - A.Y. 2014-15 In ITA No.218/Ind/2020 for the assessment year 2014-15, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,40,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loan. 2. On ground no.1, the facts as culled out from the records of Revenue Authorities are that during the course of search at office premises of the Signature Group at Chuna Bhatti Square, Pages 43-68 of LPS-72 ware se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before 30/11/2013 53 to 54 31/11/2013 - - Cash receipts of ₹ 90 Lakhs paid by assessee on 31/11/2013 55 to 58 11/12/2013 6.69 Acres 1.60 Crores ₹ 1 Crore paid on 27/11/2013 by the assessee in cash 61 to 65 - 13.07 Acres 1.60 Crores ₹ 1.50 Crores paid in cash by the assessee Thus, from the above details it is seen that the agreements made are in respect of different area to be purchased but the rate per acre mentioned in all the agreements is same i.e. ₹ 1.60 Crores per acre. It is seen that these are four different agreements made by assessee with M/s Simran Realty and its partners. The cash payments as per the agreements are made on different dates. The cheque payments mentioned in the agreements are stated to be recorded in the books of accounts, however, as regard the cash payments, the assessee has taken the plea that these are unsigned agreements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) having gone through the material, submissions and relevant judicial pronouncements deleted the addition. 4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Before us, the ld. CIT-DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer whereas the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on the file. We find that in reply to the Assessing Officer s questionnaire dated 12/01/2016 in respect of the impunged MOU/agreements, the assessee had submitted as under:- 1. These are draft unsigned agreement for purchase of land at village Inayatpura by the assessee Signature Colonisers and Simara Reality. 2. LPS 72 Page 43-46: This is an unsigned draft of an agreement between Simran Reality the assessee Signature Colonisers in which date of agreement is mentioned as 11.12.2013. Prior to the making of the draft (dated 11.12.2013), the assessee had given an payment of ₹ 60 lacs on 30.11.2013 02.12.2013. However while finalising the terms and conditions of the transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greements were prepared on 11.12.2013. Thus the cheques issued were paid prior to the date of proposed agreement and were not in pursuance of the agreement. The appellant further stated that no agreement could be reached on various terms and condition and accordingly the advance paid was refunded. The fact has also been confirmed by M/s Simara Realty before the AO. Vii The next payment of ₹ 1 Crore as per agreement is due on 30.11.2013 and it is clear that it has also been made by the assessee. The impunged payment represents future payment. Neither during the course of search nor during the course of post search investigation no evidence or material indicating any unrecorded cash payment made by the appellant to these parties. Thus there was no reason to believe that future payments mentioned in an unexecuted agreement specifically denied by both the parties to the agreement were actually made. Viii Cash payment of ₹ 1.50 crore is appearing in the unsigned and undated agreement, however since all other agreements are made in F.Y 2013-14 and the parties under consideration being same and the land being in the same village, the period of this transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the legal admissibility of the dumb document holding that the a dumb document cannot be used as an evidence to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. We find that ultimately, the ld. CIT(A) held as under: - The AO has made allegation against the assessee that it has done cash expenditure of ₹ 50,00,000/- in AY 2013-14 and ₹ 3,40,00,000/- in AY 2014-15 . In absence of any admission, by any of the partner or either by any of the person/firm/company whose names are mentioned on the pages of the MOUs, addition cannot be made on basis of sheer imagination. It is settled legal position that onus of proof is on the person who makes any allegation and not on the person who has to defend. As per legal maxim affairmanti non neganti incumbit probation means burden of proof lies upon him who affirms and not upon him who denies. Similarly as per doctrine of common law incumbit probation qui digit non qui negat i.e. burden lies upon one who alleges and not upon one who deny the existence of the fact. The AO has failed to discharge his onus of proof especially when addition has been made under deeming fiction . In view of this lacune on the part of AO, im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpunged MOU or say dumb document was undated, unsigned and not notarized/registered. The dumb document should be a speaking one reflecting each and every transaction completely, which was not in the case of appellant. The AO did not find any major discrepancies in books of accounts and therefore, books of accounts were not rejected by the AO. My findings on the issue under consideration are based on the various conclusions drawn by me which have been discussed in the above paras. Therefore, the AO was not justified in making addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- in AY 2013-14 and ₹ 3,40,00,000/- in AY 2014-15 as unexplained expenditure. Thus, the addition made by the AO amounting to ₹ 50,00,000/- in AY 2013-14 and ₹ 3,40,00,000/- in AY 2014-15 are Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed. 8. We find that before us, the ld. CIT-DR except relying upon the order of the Assessing Officer could not bring any positive material to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Having gone through the material available on record and rival submissions, we find that the assessee is a partnership firm and filing the returns regularly. The books of accounts ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC 410 The Hon ble Supreme Court has held that loose sheets of paper cannot be termed as 'book within the meaning of s. 34 of Evidence Act. It has also been held therein by the Hon ble Supreme Court that even correct and authentic entries in books of account cannot, without independent evidence of their trustworthiness, fix a liability upon a person. The Hon ble Supreme Court also observed that even assuming that the entries in loose sheets are admissible under s. 9 of the Evidence Act to support an inference about correctness of the entries still those entries would not be sufficient without supportive independent evidence. Rakesh Goyal Vs. ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ (Del) 151 The findings of Hon ble Tribunal was as under:- 20.1 After perusing the findings of the CIT(A) and the submissions of both the parties, we do not find any infirmity in these findings. Firstly the finding of the CIT(A) has not been controverted by the learned Departmental Representative by filing any positive evidence. The copies of the pages found from the possession of the assessee are placed in the paper book and after going through these papers, we find that these are simp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the possession of the document or handwriting of that person, on such document by itself cannot prove the contents of the document. These are the findings of fact recorded by both the authorities i.e. CIT(A) and the Tribunal. 15. Similarly, in the present case, as already held above, the documents recovered during the course of search from the assessee are dumb documents and there are concurrent findings of CIT(A) and the Tribunal to this effect. Since the conclusions are essentially factual, no substantial question of law arises for consideration . Jayantilal Patel Vs. ACIT Ors (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) Held that - During search at the residence of Dr. Tomar, the Department official found a slip containing some figures. This piece of paper claimed to have been recovered at the time of search contains figures under two columns. In one column, the total of these figures comes to ₹ 17,25,000 from 31st May, 1989, to 8th Dec., 1989, and in the other column, the total of these figures comes to ₹ 22,12,500. An addition of ₹ 22,12,500 on the basis of figures on a small piece of paper in respect of purchase of Plot No. B-4, Govind Marg, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chemouse P. Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 98 (Raj.): it is held that (i) Additions can be made only when evidence is available as a result of search or a requisition of books of accounts or documents and other material. However additions cannot be made on the basis of inferences. (ii) No facts were available to AO after search and inference of AO did not fall within the scope of Section 158BB. (iii) Deletion of additions made by Tribunal of assumed undeclared payments made for purchase of property was on basis of facts. Ashwani Kumar V. ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) and Daya Chand V. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 327 (Del) and S.P. Goel V. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) : Nine out of 19 slips found were without any name or amount and therefore were dumb documents and no adverse inference could be drawn. Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India 30 ITJ 197 (SC). In this case, the Hon ble Court held that without any independent evidence or corroborative material, no addition is permissible on the basis of loose paper jottings notings. The relevant paras of the order are as under :- 16. With respect to the kind of materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten against their names which are within the knowledge of only the scribe of the said diaries as to what they stand for and whom they refer to. 19. With respect to evidentiary value of regular account book, this Court has laid down in V.C. Shukla, thus; 37. In Beni v. Bisan Dayal it was observed that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate and in absence of such evidence no relief can be given to the party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another. In Hira Lal v. Ram Rakha the High Court, while negativing a contention that it having been proved that the books of account were regularly kept in the ordinary course of business and that, therefore, all entries therein should be considered to be relevant and to have been proved, said that the rule as laid down in Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of account regularly kept in the course of busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that additions based on chit of paper, surmises, conjectures etc could not be sustained in the absence of any corroborative evidence supporting it. [Similarly in present case, neither either parties have admitted payment/receipt of on money nor any corroborative evidence was seized to support the findings of the AO]. S K Gupta Vs. DCIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Del.Trib) 532 Held that that additions made on the basis of torn papers and loose sheets cannot be sustained as same do not indicate that any transaction ever took place and does not contain any information in relation to the nature and party to the transaction in question. Jagdamba Rice Mills Vs. ACIT (2000) 67 TTJ (Chd) 838 Held that No addition can be made on dump documents . 10. On consideration of above facts in the light of the judicial pronouncements (supra), we are of the view that the additions have been made on the basis of a dumb paper as the agreements were not executed nor they were signed by any of the parties and simply on the basis of unsigned unexecuted documents, the additions cannot be made on merely assumptions and surmises. Nothing has been b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transaction. However during the appeal proceedings the assessee has furnished the confirmation of the lender and the copy of his ITR and bank account. Apparently, the AO has completely misunderstood and erred in treating advance received against sale of land as unsecured loan in the first place. Further, the appellant has filed confirmation of Shri Ish Arora, copy of ITR and bank account statement. On perusal of the evidences filed by the appellant it is seen that Shri Ish Arora vide confirmation letter dated has admitted that a sum of ₹ 25,00,000/- was given as token money for purchase of land vide cheque no 643783 dated 03.12.2013 of Dena Bank. Further, the token money is still outstanding in the hands of appellant because the necessary compliance has not been made by the appellant. Shri Ish Arora has been earning income from salary, house property and profit from firms. 4.5.3 As discussed above, the appellant has furnished all details such as documents relating to identity, and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. Thus, appellant has furnished all the required details in order to prove genuineness of the transaction and creditw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions required for genuineness of the transaction. Our view is supported by the ratio laid down in the following judicial pronouncements: a. Umesh Electricals vis Asst. CIT(2011) 18 IT] 635 (Trib.Agra): (2011) 131 ITD 127: (2011) 141 TTJ Establishment of identity and credit-worthiness proved- Assessee produced the bank account of creditor in his bank account on the same day on which loan was given- Assessee furnished the cash flow statement of creditor- Based on inquiry, AO noted that creditor was engaged in providing accommodation entries-HELD- In group cases, it has been held that there was no evidence against the creditor to prove that he was providing accommodation entries-Further, mere deposit of money by the creditor on the same day, does not establish that the loan is not genuine-Assessee has proved the source of credit and also the source of Source -Addition cannot be made . b. Aseem Singh v/s Asst. CIT (2012) 19 ITJ 52 (Trib.- Indore) Identity and credit-worthiness proved-Assessee took loan of Rs.l, 00, 000/- confirmation of creditor was filed-Lower authorities made addition u1s 68 holding that amount was deposited in cash in the bank account of lender imme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said surrender and filed the returns on the basis of the accounts which are duly audited. In the course of the assessment proceedings, all the information as required by the AO from time to time was furnished. The assessee is in the business of real estate, builders and developers. The assessee had maintained regular books of account in which all the expenses including the cost of construction were duly recorded. These books were presented before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and were duly checked by him and no deficiency was found in the books of account or the records maintained. It was submitted before the ld. A.O. that in absence of any incriminating paper, no addition can be made. However, the ld. A.O. made the addition on the basis of the statement recorded during the course of the search. 16. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A), deleted the addition relying on the decision of the various High Courts and the decisions of this Bench in the cases of Ultimate Builders in ITA 134/IND/2019 dated 9.8.2019 and Sudeep Maheshwari in ITA No.524/Ind/2013 dated 13.2.2019. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the additions have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The same was not also offered as income in the return filed . Thus, the statement of Shri Rajkumar Khilwani was recorded after the completion of the search and seizure at the premises of the assessee. The said statement was recorded on 02.02.2014 afters search and seizure operation at 18-19 Kolar Castle, Chuna Bhatti Square, Kolar Road, Bhopal in the case of Signature group, as such it can be concluded that the said statement was not in connection with the search operation carried on in the case of the assessee at Raipur. Thus the statement under consideration cannot be said to have been recorded during the course of search in the case of the assessee. We find that it was also submitted before the ld. A.O. that in absence of any incriminating paper, no addition can be made. However, the ld. A.O. made the addition simply on the basis of the statement recorded during the course of the search. The ld. A.O. narrated number of documents found during the course of the search. However, we find that none of these documents pertain to the assessee and the ld. A.O. merely relied on the statement recorded u/s 132(4). On the sole ground of the declaration in the statement the addition was mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 188/IND/2018 vide order dated 08.1.2021. Copies of these decisions have been filed in the paper book. We find that the Tribunal has relied on the various judgments of the various High Courts specially the decision of the Hon. Jharkhand High Court in the case of Shri Ganesh Trading co. v/s. CIT (2013) 257 CTR 159 and the decision of Hon. Gujrat High Court in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Choksi v/s. CIT (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj) . The relevant portion of the order dated 8.1.2021 passed in the case of Signature Builders in the case of Signature Infrastructure (supra) is reproduced hereunder: 17. Now we take up Ground No.3 raised for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 in the case of Signature Builders vide ITA No.185 186/Ind/2018 through which common issue has been raised by the assessee contending that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O for the amount declared by the assessee as additional income of ₹ 25,00,000/- and ₹ 3,00,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively in the statement given during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act. 18. Brief facts relating to this common issue as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the declaration made u/s 132(4) is binding on the assessee. 21. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no addition was warranted as the surrender has not been made with reference to any loose paper seized during the course of search and was accordingly not in accordance with the provisions of section 132(4) of the Act. The AO has failed to bring on record any specific instance of the assessee having earned any undisclosed income or having made any unexplained investment which could justify the addition under reference. The sole basis for making the addition is the statement made by one of the partners. The Ld. A.O. has made various additions for the documents found. Thus, all the loose papers and the investments have been considered by the A.O. and accordingly he has made the additions under various heads. After making the additions on the basis of various papers there remains no scope for making the addition on the basis of declaration made in the statement. It could be observed that the question asked and the answer given in the statement recorded were both vague and general in nature and were not with refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 25,00,000/- and ₹ 3,00,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO for Assessment Years 2013-14 2014-15 respectively for the amount declared by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act contending that the same is without corroborating with any incriminating material found during the course of search. 26. We observe that the search was conducted on Signature Group including the assessee on 29.1.2014. Certain loose papers were seized. Additional income of ₹ 3,25,00,000/- (₹ 25,00,000/- + ₹ 3,00,00,000/-) was offered for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. However in the return of income filed post search u/s 153A of the Act such additional income of ₹ 25,00,000/- and ₹ 3,00,00,000/- was not offered in the return of income. During the assessment proceedings it was submitted that various loose papers and documents narrated by the Ld. A.O found during the course of search does not pertain to the assessee. Since there was no such incriminating material relating to the assessee found during the course of search relating to the addition in question the alleged addition was made purely on the basis of the statement given u/s 132(4) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Signature Infrastructure 50 300 350 2 Signature Builders 25 300 325 3 Signature Builders and Colonisers 25 300 325 4 Signature Developers 100 100 Total 1100 5 Om Builders 275 275 6 Om Construction 50 750 800 7 Sainath Infrastructure P Ltd 25 25 Total 1100 8 Ultimate Builders 225 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The search action in the case of Signature Group continued ever after 31.1.2014. On 02.02.2014, Mr. Vipin Chouhan who is the partner of the assessee firm gave a statement before the search team wherein he made surrender of ₹ 2,25,00,000/- on behalf of the appellant firm and agreed to offer it to tax. In the very same statement he also made surrender on behalf of another firm M/s. Virasha Infrastructure in the capacity of a partner. In the very same statement he also made surrender on behalf of other companies of Signature Group. Ld. A.O during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has not offered surrendered income of ₹ 2,25,00,000/- for tax and confronted the assessee. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, assessee made the retraction by submitting that no such undisclosed income was earned and therefore no such income was required to be offered to tax. However, Ld. A.O giving reference to the statement of Mr. Vipin Chouhan, partner of Ultimate Builders and also giving reference to the seized documents found during the search at Signature Group made addition for undisclosed income. When the matter came up before Ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 132(4) of the Act, we will like to first reproduce the provisions of Section 132(4) of the Act; (4) The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is fond to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery to other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922 ), or under this Act. 1 Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the examination of any person under this sub- section may be not merely in respect of any books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of the search, but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922 ), or under this Act. 16. The above sub Section 4 of Section 132 of the Act starts with reference to authorised officer , which means that the Officer who is authorised to conduct search on the assessee. In the instant case it is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement u/s 132(4) of the Act. 21. Coming to the issue of addition made by the Ld. A.O on the basis of the statement but no reference been given to the incriminating material, we find that in the assessment order Ld. A.O has referred to various seized documents but none of them is directly related to the assessee. These seized documents are of the Signature Group and Ld. A.O has only mentioned the details of the seized document without uttering a word about their nexus with the business transaction carried out by the assessee or by pointing out assessee s connection with the seized document in name or otherwise. Thus it can be safely concluded that the addition made by the Ld. A.O was not on the basis on the incriminating material found during the course of search but only on the basis of statement of Mr. Vipin Chouhan given on 02.02.2014. 22. Recently the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT(1) VS. Sudeep Maheshwari (supra) in which the undersigned was also a co-author while adjudicating the issue that whether addition can be made merely on the basis of statement given during the course of search without correlating the statement with incriminating materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red during the search. Therefore, no inference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 23. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.), held that merely on the basis of admission, the assessee could not have been subject to additions, unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission. 24. Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court Shree Ganesh Trading Co. V/s Commissioner of Income-tax, Tax Case No.8 of 1999 order dated 03.01.2013 held as under; 4. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given in the impugned orders as well as reasons given in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi (supra). 5. It appears from the statement of facts that there was a search in the business premises of the petitioner s firm as well as in the residential premises of its partner, Shri Sheo Kumar Kejriwal, on 24th September, 1987. During the course of search, the statement of Shri Sheo Kumar Kejriwal had been recorded under section 132(4) of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to be more convincing and that was not considered by the authorities below. Here in this case also, no specific reason has been given for rejection of the assessee s contention by which the assessee has retracted from his admission. None of the authorities gave any reason as to why Assessing Officer did not proceed further to enquire into the undisclosed income as admitted by the assessee in his statement under section 134(2) in fact situation where during the course of search, there was no recovery of assets or cash by the Department. This fact also has not been taken care of and considered by any of the authorities that in a case where there was search operation, no assets or cash was recovered from the assessee, in that situation what had prompted the assessee to make declaration of undisclosed income of ₹ 20 lacs. Mere reading of statement of assessee is not the assessment of evidentiary value of the evidence when such statement is self-incriminating. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, a wrong inference had been drawn by the authorities below in holding that there was undisclosed income to the tune of ₹ 20 lacs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and without referring to any incriminating material found during the course of search. Addition for undisclosed income of ₹ 2,25,00,000/- is deleted. Accordingly Ground No.1 raised in the appeal by the assessee is allowed. 31. From perusal of the above finding of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ultimate Builders (supra), we find that the common issue raised in Ground No.3 of M/s Signature Builders is identical to the issue raised and adjudicated in the case of M/s Ultimate Builders (supra). We therefore respectfully following the same and also in view of the identical fact that impugned addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- and ₹ 3,00,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O was purely based on the statement given u/s 132(4) of the Act and there was no reference to any incriminating material found during the course of search which could support the impugned addition, we thus delete the addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2013-14 and ₹ 3,00,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2014-15 and set aside the finding of both the lower authorities and accordingly allow Ground No.3 raised in assessee s appeal for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 raised in ITA No.185- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
