9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal reveals that the said addition had been ordered to be deleted. No material had been placed on record by the revenue to show that the said deletion was on any technical ground and as to what was that technical ground. Revenue also failed to produce any material on record to show that any addition of income at all qua the same transaction had been made in the income of the vendor of Plot No. 42 who was obviously the main person who could have derived profits from the same. The burden of proving all this lied heavily on the revenue, but nothing could be brought on record to prove the allegation that there was concealment in the consideration amount as reflected in the sale deeds of the Plot No. 42 and, therefore, in our cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of this appeal are that on 04.08.2005, a search and seizure operation was conducted at the residential premises of the appellant who is a partner in M/s Reliance Estate Agency which is a Real Estate Broker Concern. Certain documents/loose papers were seized from his residential premises. Certain documents were also impounded from the business premises of M/s Reliance Estate Agency. On 08.05.2006, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued in response to which, the appellant filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 2,16,650/- from house property and business. Subsequently, notices under Sections 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act were issued against him. A questionnaire along with another notice dated 11.05.2007 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.12.2007 which was dismissed by CIT (A) vide order dated 28.01.2011. 3. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed ITA No. 1609/Del/2011 before the Tribunal which too was dismissed vide order dated 25.06.2018 and the instant appeal has been filed against the said order. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the impugned order as passed by the Tribunal was not sustainable in the eyes of law and was liable to be reversed as the Tribunal had committed a grave error in ignoring the fact that the appellant was neither buyer nor seller of the Plot bearing No. 42, Sector-6, Faridabad and simply by being a broker for facilitating sale/purchase of this property, he could not be assumed to have derived huge profit to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roving that the documents allegedly recovered proved the allegation of receipt of any amount of money by the appellant. The addition in the income of the appellant made on the basis of figures mentioned therein, could at best be said to be tentative or estimated amount as the MOU and figures shown at page 55 of Annexure A-1 were shown to be bearing date 24.12.1997 whereas the sale deeds qua the Plot No. 42 had been executed only in the year 2000. With these broad submissions, it was urged that the impugned order was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside and it was submitted that the appeal deserved to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the revenue resisted the various contentions as raised by learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was shown as 38 lacs. According to the revenue, apart from the said amount of Rs. 38 lacs which as per the record was paid by way of cheque by the buyer to the seller, certain other transactions in cash had also taken place as on the basis of the documents seized during search from the premises of the appellant, it was revealed that a total amount of Rs. 1,68,38,610/- had been paid by the buyer. First of all, it may be mentioned at the cost of repetition that addition was made in the income of the buyer, but a perusal of orders passed by CIT (A) as well as by the Tribunal reveals that the said addition had been ordered to be deleted. No material had been placed on record by the revenue to show that the said deletion was on any technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was concealment in the consideration amount as reflected in the sale deeds of the Plot No. 42 and, therefore, in our considered opinion, on the basis of these documents which are part of Annexure A-1 and are rather loose rough papers only, no reasonable conclusion could be drawn that any amount of money what to say of Rs. 25,44,305/- had been received by the appellant. 10. Further, in the absence of any material forthcoming on record to show that any addition was made by the revenue in the hands of the vendor-Company or its Managing Director for receiving any unaccounted for cash amount of money in respect of the transaction of sale of Plot No. 42, in our opinion, the appellant who was only a broker could not be saddled with any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
