9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d during the course of search which may contain details of payment of Rs. 1.50 crore paid by assessee for purchase of land. On the basis of the said observation, the CIT(A) deleted the entire addition. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) on proper appreciation of fact correctly held that the additions made by the assessing officer is not based on evidence on record. No contrary facts or law is brought to our notice to take other view, hence, we affirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). in the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction under Section 153C of the Act, issued notice to the assessee under Section 153C of the Act on 26/09/2017. In response to notice under Section 153C, the assessee filed his return of income on 09/11/2017 declaring the same income as declared in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act i.e. Rs. 5,15,720/-. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, proceeded for assessment. The Assessing Officer extracted the relevant clause on MOU and the statement of Shri Aagam V. Vadecha in the assessment order. As per MOU, the assessee was having 24% share in the land and Param Properties was having 4% share. The partner of param Properties has stated that they made part payment of Rs. 25.00 lacs in cash for 4% of their share, the Assessing officer took his view that 4% share of property is valued at a minimum of Rs. 25.00 lacs then the total actual value of entire property is at least of Rs. 6.25 crores and share of investment in property proportionate to their share would be as under: S.NO Name Share Amount i. Asheshbhai Nanalal Doshi 36% 22500000 ii. Mahendra C Mehta 36% 22500000 iii. Pravinbhai H Shah 24% 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .w.s. 143(3) of the Act as well as addition on merit. The objection of assessee on validity of order under Section 153C was rejected by the ld. CIT(A) by taking a view that the assessee himself admitted that he has paid Rs. 50.00 lacs in cash for purchase of this land which was returned to him as the deal was cancelled. The said amount is disclosed by assessee in subsequent assessment order. Once the assessee himself admitted investment in the aforesaid land, which was returned to him, then taking stand that the notice under Section 153C is illogical and dismissed the corresponding grounds. 4. On the merit of addition, the assessee stated that the said MOU was unsigned and unregistered. The assessee in reply to show cause notice before the Assessing Officer explained the fact that the MOU was not signed by any one of four parties mentioned in the MOU. The alleged MOU was seized from the premises of Shri Aagam V. Vadecha and not from the assessee. The date of MOU is mentioned as 05/03/2015 it was seized on 03/09/2015, for six months, none of the parties has signed which shows that it has no evidentiary value. The MOU does not speak about any payment made on or before date of MOU. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of search or statement of any person which proved that the assessee had paid Rs. 1.50 crore for purchase of land. The Assessing Officer made addition without having any documentary or oral evidence. The Assessing Officer made addition without any basis of evidence. There is no document found during the course of search which may contain details of payment of Rs. 1.50 crore paid by assessee for purchase of land. On the aforesaid observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition. 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submissions of the learned CIT-DR for the revenue and the learned authorised representative (AR) of the assessee and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue has vehemently supported the order of Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT-DR submits that firstly the MOU in question was correctly and accurately describes the property. The land in question is actually registered in the name of one of the partners Shri Ashesh N Doshi whose name appears in the MOU. The ld. CITDR further submits that as per MOU entry of cheques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs. 6.25 crores. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee questioned the sanctity of MOU on the ground that it is not signed and has no evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer held that the MOU in question correctly and accurately described the property, the land in question is actually registered in the name of one of the partner. In the statement, partner of Param Properties stated that the firm was 4% share. As purchase deed of property was seized from the premises of Param Properties which was registered on 31/3/2014 and the details of property is identical as mentioned in the MOU. The Assessing Officer on the basis of his aforesaid observation drawn his conclusion that the assessee made payment of Rs.1.50 crore for purchase of land recorded in MOU which is unaccounted in nature against which no plausible explanation is offered by assessee and was added to the income of assessee. 10. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee not only objected against the validity of order under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act but the additions on merit. The objection of assessee on validity of order under Section 153C was rejected by the ld. CIT(A) by taking a view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
