9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961. Subsequently, the A.O. received information from Investigation Wing which are noted by the A.O. in the assessment order, and based on such information and after analysing the return of income for the A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12, after obtaining the approval from the Competent Authority, the case of the assessee-company was reopened under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by issuing notice dated 30.03.2018. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee electronically filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.10,62,27,410/-. The case was taken-up for scrutiny and consequently, assessment was framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 22.12.2018 and the total income was determined by the A.O. at Rs.14,62,27,410/-. 2.1. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 07.10.2019 in Appeal No.10325/18-19 granted substantial relief to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following effective ground : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it, but, the assessee company denied having received any cash in lieu of selling of the property. The A.O. has noted that summons under section 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to Shri Naresh Gupta, Deed Writer -cum- Advocate who appeared before the A.O. and his statement was recorded under section 131(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The statement of Shri Naresh Gupta is reproduced at page-3 of the assessment order. The A.O. has noted that on the analysis of the draft deed obtained during the search proceedings it was found that major constituents like the vendor, vendee, the name of the share holders and their share holdings, the sale consideration were exactly the same as that to the original sale deed executed by the assessee company. The A.O. has also noted that the draft deed found during search contained a draft receipt, according to which, assessee had received Rs.4 crores in cash from Mr. Munish Arora in lieu of sale of property at Greater Kailash, New Delhi and Shri Naresh Gupta in his statement that was recorded on 12.12.2018 had never disputed the preparation of draft deed, but, had stated that he does not remember as to under whose instruction the draft deed was drafted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to him, to attract the provisions of Section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 it was necessary to prove both ownership and possession of money etc., in the hands of assessee company. He, thereafter, for the reasons noted in the order, deleted the addition made by the A.O. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 8. Before us, Ld. D.R. took us through the order of A.O. and submitted that during the course of search on AKN Group of cases, a hard disk was found at the residential premises of Shri Naresh Gupta, who is a Deed Writer and an Advocate by profession. From the data recovered from hard disk it was found that during A.Y. 2011-12, assessee had received Rs.4 crores in cash from Shri Munish Arora on account of sale of property. He submitted that the data retrieved from the hard disk matched with the details of sale deed furnished by assessee as the name of purchaser and seller matched with the Draft Deed and the actual Sale Deed. He submitted that a draft cash receipt of Rs.4 crore being paid to assessee was also found. He further submitted in the data retrieved there was mention of Rs.5 crore being paid along with the Cheque No.222546. He submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the details of receipt of Rs.4 crore cash, assessee denied of having received any cash. A.O. on comparing the Draft Deed that was retrieved from the hard disk with the original Sale Deed executed by the assessee noticed that the name of the Vendor, Vendee, the name of the shareholders and their shareholding, the sale consideration were exactly similar in the Draft Deed and the original Sale Deed. He also noticed that one tranche of payment to the tune of Rs.5 crores received through Cheque No.222546 dated 16.04.2010 drawn of Bank of Maharashtra, Greater Kailash was also reflected in the Draft Deed retrieved from the hard disk and the original Sale Deed executed by the assessee. A.O. has noted that the Draft Deed retrieved from the hard disk also revealed about receipt of cash of Rs.4 crore in lieu of sale of property, but, assessee denied in receipt. The A.O. accordingly made addition of Rs.4 crore as income under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. While deleting the addition, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) was guided by the fact that the addition was made on the basis of undated, unsigned and unexecuted Draft Deed and draft cash receipt retriev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning and means anything which come in or resulted in gain. The case law relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable on facts and, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. We, therefore, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and uphold the order of A.O. Thus, the ground of Revenue is allowed. 11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed. 12. We, now, proceed with the Cross Objection of the Assessee. 13. In the cross objection, the assessee is challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 14. Before us, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has simply placed reliance on the decision ITAT, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the case of ITO vs., Arunkumar Kapoor [2011] 16 taxmann.com 373 (Amritsar). 15. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee in the cross objection is challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
