9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le consideration of Rs.5 crore paid by Cheque No.222546 dated 16.04.2010 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Greater Kailash which matched with the part of sale consideration mentioned in the original Sale Deed executed by the assessee. Thus, when the part of the sale consideration of Rs.5 crores along with the date of cheque, its number and the bank on which it was drawn matched with the Draft Agreement, then this material evidence cannot be simply ignored and brushed aside and overlooked by holding that the Draft Agreement was undated, unstamped and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. A bare reading of Section 69A makes it clear that where the property described under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by the assessee from any source of income and the assessee does not offer any explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of such property and the explanation offered is not satisfactory in the opinion of A.O, then the value of such property would be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. We find that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Bimal Parkash Gupta [ 1989 (1) TMI 42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al 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. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act and deciding the case in favour of assessee despite of the concrete evidence in form of receipt of Rs.4 crores which was found received from Mr. Munish Arora as per hard disc found at the premises of Sh. Naresh Gupta, the deed writer and an advocate by profession. The same was accepted in the statement on oath of Sh. Naresh Gupta recorded u/s 131(1A) on 08.1.2003 which was further not denied in cross-examination/statement recorded during the re-assessment proceedings on 12.12.2018. 4. The assessee also filed cross objections and has raised the following grounds : 1. That, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating on the issue of validity of assumption of jurisdiction under s. 147/ 148 of the Act. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 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. A.O. has further noted that in the reasons recorded for reopening, it is stated from the sale consideration amount one tranche of payment to the tune of Rs.5 crores mentioned in the draft deed bearing cheque No.222546 dated 16.04.2010 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Greater Kailash was exactly the same as that in the original sale deed which was executed by the assessee company. The A.O, therefore, concluded that the draft cash receipt which was found at the premises of Shri Naresh Gupta was indeed executed by the assessee company. The A.O. also noted that as per the statement of Shri Naresh Gupta though in his statement he has stated that he does not remember as to under whose instruction the said draft deed was drafted, but, the transaction between M/s. Shivram Consultant Pvt. Ltd., and Mr. Munish Arora was never disputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 submitted that when the part of consideration along with the cheque number matched with the actual sale deed, then it can be safely presumed that the other part of the data being receipt of Rs.4 crore in cash was actually received by the assessee. He, therefore, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in observing that the draft deed and draft cash receipt had no evidentiary value. He, therefore, submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order of A.O. be upheld. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. He further took us through the order of Ld. CIT(A) and supported his order. He further submitted that the addition was made on the basis of draft cash receipt which is undated, unexecuted and unsigned and it has no ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty, 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 retrieved from the hard disk of Shri Naresh Gupta, there being no 3rd party confirmation or corroborating evidence of the receipt of cash. We do not agree with the reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition. We find that A.O. has noted that the Draft Deed retrieved from the hard disk showed that the major constituents like the Vendor, Vendee, the name of the shareholders and their shareholdings, the sale consideration were exactly similar in the Draft Deed and original Sale Deed executed by the assessee. Further, in the Draft Deed there was mention about the part of sale consideration of Rs.5 crore paid by Cheque No.222546 dated 16.04.2010 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Greater Kailash which matched with the part of sale consideration mentioned in the original Sale Deed executed by the assessee. Thus, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and relies upon the decision of Arunkumar Kapoor (supra). Before us, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has simply relied on the aforesaid decision. We find that the facts of the present case and facts in the case of Arunkumar Kapoor (supra) are different and, therefore, the decision is not applicable to the present case. In that case, the issue was whether the proceedings should have been initiated under section 153C or under section 148 of the I.T. Act which is not the case in the present ground of assessee. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find merit in the ground of assessee and thus, the ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed. 17. In the result, cross-objection of the Assessee is dismissed. 18. To sum-up, appeal of Revenue is allowed and cross-ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
