9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese documents are dumb documents as far as the assessee is concerned and relying upon these documents for making additions in the hands of the assessee is not justified. The assessee s case is covered on this issue by the binding judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court t in the case of CBI vs. V.C Shukla [ 1998 (3) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT] and common Common cause Vs. UOI [ 2017 (1) TMI 1164 - SUPREME COURT] Additions made by the AO are not found sustainable and deserved to be deleted. Moreover the AO stated that in the backup of i-phone taken from mobile phone of Shri Agam Vadecha, Phone Number of the assessee were in his mobile. Storing of assessee s telephone number in other person s phone cannot be made the basis for making additions particularly, even after taking backup of the i-phone, no sms/communication was found which remotely indicate that the assessee had transactions with the Param Properties, as written in these documents. As there is no Cheque entry tallying with any of the bank account of the assessee and there is no such reference in the assessment order by the AO, CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsequent to the said search-action, notices u/s 153C of the Act were issued to the assessee for various assessment years and the case of the assessee. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act vide No. ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2017-18/1006565883(1) dated 26.09.2017 was issued which was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee and same was also duly served. In response to aforesaid notices under section 143(2) of the Act, assessee Shri Abhishek Ramaniklal Shah has submitted certain documents along with written submission dated 29.12.2017. During the year the assessee has earning interest on loan and advances and he is also partner of M/s Lipica Enterprises. One of the core evidences in this case is that the documents and evidences seized during the course of search in the case of M/s Param properties contained several entries of the assessee Shri Abhishek Shah, written as Abhishek /ABK which were in the nature of loan transactions also cash receipts from sale of flats and cash payments for booking / purchase of flats in the projects Florence undertaken by Enn Enn Corp. Ltd. and Jolly Residency undertaken by M/s. Ghelaan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above detail gets strengthen by this fact that back up of i-phone of Shri Agam Vadecha, one of the partners of M/s Param Properties, was taken during the course of search proceedings, under section 132 of the Act. This number is not only featuring in the contact list but also featuring in the call log list as under which shows that assessee was in regular touch with the partners of Param Properties. Thus, it is correctly ascertained that the transaction reflect in seized documents in the name of Abhishek/ABK are of assessee Shri Abhishek Ramniklala Shah. 5. In view of the facts, the assessing officer held that to tax the amount reflecting in the seized documents, in hands of the assessee on substantive basis, which is based on a sound footing is proper, therefore, assessing officer made addition of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash payments and Rs. 36,43,710/- on account of unexplained cash receipts. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. The ld CIT(A) held that the document relied upon for making these additions by assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cha, one of the partners of M/s Param Properties, was taken during the course of search proceedings u/s. 132 of the Act. Based on these facts and circumstances, ld DR contended that addition made by the assessing officer should be sustained. 9. On the other hand, Shri Rasesh Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that the documents were found from the 3rd party premises, these are not in the hand writing of the assessee and these are not signed by the assessee and moreover the party from whom documents were found, did not identify, the name of the assessee, hence the AO was not justified in relating these documents to the assessee. The complete name of the assessee is also not written on these papers and there are other names also written on these papers. These facts clearly shows that these documents are dumb documents as far as the assessee is concerned and relying upon these documents for making additions in the hands of the assessee is not justified, therefore, ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition, therefore order of ld CIT(A) may be upheld. 10. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the assessee. Rather it is mentioned in the Assessment order that Shri Agam Vadecha has not identified the person written on this paper "Abhishek/ABK". From the assessment order, it is found that there is no statement against the assessee relied upon for making the additions, the contention of the cross-examination does not found acceptable hence, this contention is dismissed. The assessee further contended that in the seized material, which has been relied upon for making addition, the entries noted are in the name of ABK, Abhishek Jain, Abhi Tulsian and Rahul Jain. Thus, these entries or transactions do not belong to the assessee. The assessee further stated that on being asked to Shri Agam Vadecha partner of M/s Param Properties, he did not mentioned written as "Abhishek/ABk". Therefore relating to the name written on these papers to the assessee has no basis. The assessee further stated that the document relied upon for making these additions were not found at the premises of the assessee but found at the premises of the 3rd party, it is not in the hand writing of the assessee and it is not signed by the assessee. Moreover, the person from whose premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relate to the assessee. 13. The ld CIT(A) observed that it is undisputed fact that the documents relied upon for making additions were found at the premise of M/s Param Properties i.e. 3rd party and not at the premises of the assessee. It is further undisputed fact that these documents are not in the hand writing of the assessee and not signed by the assessee. These documents were found from the premises of M/s Param Properties and on specific question by the authorized officer to identify the name of the person written on this paper, Shri Agam Vadecha partner of M/s Param Properties did not identify that the name written as Abhishek/ABK is the assessee. In such circumstances that the documents were found from the 3rd party premises, these are not in the hand writing of the assessee and these are not signed by the assessee and moreover the party from whom documents were found, did not identify, the name of the assessee, the AO is not justified in relating these documents or the transactions written on these documents to the assessee. The complete name of the assessee is also not written on these papers and there are other names also written on these papers. Thus, ld CIT(A) noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
