9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfaction by the AO of other search persons. In the present case the AO has not assumed any jurisdiction under section 153C rather than made the addition u/s 153A. Thus the assessment as well as addition u/s 153A are wrongly made and liable to be deleted. Further the AO has also made the addition u/s 68 which is also incorrect or wrong in view of above deliberations. Thus in view of the above facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted and grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. Long Term Capital Gain - Addition was made on the basis of statement of Sh. Nirmal Kedia who purchased the land from assessee and paid the On-Money to the assessee and statement has been given u/s 132(4) - HELD THAT:- The same addition was also made in the hands of M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP on account of On-Money Paid by him to the assessee. On perusal of the record and material before us, it is found that Sh. Nirmal Kedia has retracted from his statements and the assessee has also nowhere admitted receiving any On-Money from M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP and no documents or evidence has been found either in the possession of the assessee or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the persons and ignoring the retraction made by the assessee and proceeded on the third party statements. Hence, also the addition so made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. The AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE for charging tax on higher without any show cause notice and not applicable. Hence, the provision so invoked and tax so charged at higher rate is also being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged being contrary to the provisions of law and facts may kindly be deleted in full. ITA No. 168/JP/2022 Jai Singh Yadav (Department) 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs,2,44,93,451/- on account of long term capital gains, resulting out of hitherto unreported cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nirmal Kumar Kedia on the very same day. Consequent upon the search proceedings, the AO issued the notice u/s 153A on 17.02.2017 and in response thereto, the assessee filed his return of income on 30.06.2017 declaring the total income at Rs.3,08,160/-, same as declared u/s 139(1) . The AO in his assessment order stated that some documents were found and seized at page No.7 of Exhibit No.2 of Annexure-AS at the premises of Sh. Harpal Yadav relating to details of transaction in the name of Kailash Bhutia- Jobner Walon Ka Hisab wherein the details of cash payment of Rs.1,27,50,000/- and cheque payment of Rs. 30,50,000/- is mentioned vide page 2 of the assessment order., Sh. Harpal Yadav statement was recorded u/s 132(4) at his premises wherein he has stated about the sale of shop at Kardhani by Kailash Bhutia to Gopal Yadav Jai Singh Yadav for Rs. 1.50 crore. He also stated that the said transactions took place approx 2-3 years back and that he had no role in this transaction. He also stated that registry of this transaction was done approx 2 years back vide Que Ans. 11 at page 2 of assessment order. The AO also noted that during the course of search sale deed dt.06.08.2015 was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the passage of considerable time of 7 months and same is hereby rejected. Thus the AO held that this amount in the nature of on money consideration and he made the addition of Rs.1,17,20,000/- u/s 68 and also invoked the provision of Sec. 115BBE of the Act. 2.4 In first appeal, the assessee filed the detailed WS (PB49-56) alongwith various case laws which is also mentioned at pages No. 3-11 of the ld. CIT(A) s. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the same confirmed the additions and action of the AO by observing that in this case incriminating documents substantiating the unaccounted transactions were found and seized which were further corroborated by the sale deed as well as the aforesaid statement of assessee and Sh. Harpal Yadav. The ld. CIT(A) has also referred some judgments in his order vide page 15 to 18. Thus the ld. CIT(A) by relying upon on the statements of Shri Harpal Yadav and assessee recorded during the course of Search, had confirmed the addition . 2.5 The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld.CIT(A) before us. However, during the course of hearing, following written submission were placed by the AR of the assessee. 1. No addition can be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. And no addition can be made on the basis of documents found at the premises of third parties until and unless the same is not provides and confronted to the person in his hand the additions are proposed . The Hon ble Supreme Court in decision dated 02.09.2015 in case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE 127 DTR 0241 held that denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were made the sole basis of the assessment is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity in as much as it amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Copy of order is enclosed. The assessee also referred the following judgments in his supports In Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerela [1973]19 ITR 18 (SC). In CIT v. Lavanya Land (P.) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 161 (Bom.) Where seized documents were not in name of assessee no action could have been undertaken in case of assessee under section 153C and further entire decision being based on huge amounts revealed from seized documents not being supported by actual cash passing hands, additions under section 69C were not sustainable. Upheld by Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of statements of other persons and cross examination was essential to bring out correct facts and to discredit the testimony of those persons. Manorama Singhal vs. ITO ITA No. 130/Ind/2020 21-Sep-2021 (2021) 63 CCH 0096 Indore Trib Thus no addition can be made looking to the above facts and judicial pronouncements. 2. Retraction with Affidavit filed by assessee cannot be discarded without corroborative material evidences: 2.1The ld. AO has ignored blindly that the whole of the retraction affidavit is relevant in this appeal. The ld. AO has made addition of Rs.1,17,20,000/-in income on the basis of statements of the assessee and statement of Mr. Harpal Yadav which were recorded u/s 132(4) during search proceedings in his case behind the back of assessee and there is no incriminating document found at the premises of assessee to substantiate the finding of AO. The assessee has retracted from his search statements by filing an affidavit dated 19/06/2017(PB1-6). But the ld. AO has not rebutted the same with the help of any contrary evidence rather he has recorded the statement of the assessee u/s 131 on dt. 03.05.2018 (PB 43-47). As also stated in his retraction that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imprisonment which may extend up to 7 years and shall also be liable for payment of fine. In light of the above, it can be concluded that an affidavit is a document of extreme importance and value. Although, it can be signed by Principal Officers as well as their authorized representatives, it is expected that it is signed only by persons who are fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. Affidavit is treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of The Evidence Act. In the case of Prashant Vs. Muncipal Council Bhadravat AIR 2009 BOM 144 it has been held The provisions of Civil Manual, Chapter XXVI, para 506 read thus -506. The person who may administer oaths to deponents must be duly authorised under Section 139 of the Civil Procedure Code to do so. It would thus mean that the persons who may administer oath to the deponents are to be the persons who are authorized under Section 139 of C.P.C. to do so. Therefore, the result is obvious that the Notaries are authorized to administer oath to the deponents.11The affidavits which are to be under the Code, can be sworn by on administering the oath to the deponents by any Notary appointed under the Notaries Act and un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... नसे (अर्थात कैलाश भूतिआ) संपर्क जोबनेर के निवासी 2 कुमावत जाती के ठेकेदारों ने करवाया था जब की मै उनका नाम नही जानता हूँ| इन्होने कैलाश भूतिया की करधनी स्थित दूकान मेरे साले गोपाल यादव व जयसिंह यादव को 1.5 crore मुझे ê ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arpal has also stated that there were 2 contractors who were mediators in the deal of sale of shop by KailashBhutia to GopalLalYadav and Jai Singh Yadav. It is not clear that when Mr. Harpal was himself not a part of the alleged deal, then how could he state that the sale of shop was done for Rs. 1.50 crore and the reason is best known to him. The assessee asked for cross examination of Mr. Harpal Yadav, but it was not granted by learned AO. Further Mr. HarpalYadav has stated that the deal of sale of shop was done 2- 3 years back, but Shop No. 16 has been purchased by sons and nephews of assesses in Aug, 2015 which was just more than a year back. This again shows that Mr. HarpalYadav seems to be confused or trying to say something else. 4. No additions can be made without any material found during the course of search or no incriminating documents found during the course of search: Further we have to submit that no additions were called for in the assessment u/s 153A or 143(3) for the year under consideration, in the present case, admittedly no incriminating material has been found or seized from the premises of assessee which could substantiate or corroborate the payment of on mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Chhoga Lal Jain(Maroo), Leela Devi Jain(Maroo) and Vijay Jain v/s DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur in ITA No. 128,129,130,131,132/Jodh//2019 dt. 28.11.2019 Rathi Rathi Steel Ltd. ANR. vs. ACIT ANR. 31st May, 2019 (2019) 56 CCH 0102 DelTrib. PCIT v/s Meeta Gutgutia Prop. Ferns Patel Ors 395 ITR 526(Del). Further the SLP filled by the revenue has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.07.2018 257 Taxman 441(SC) Pr. CIT. Dharampal Premchand Ltd.(2018) 408 ITR 0170 (Delhi). Pr.CIT-18 vs Ms. Lata Jain [2017] 81 Taxmann.com 83 (Delhi)- In Pr.CIT-V vs Vikas Gutgutia [2017] 88 taxmann.com 605 (Delhi)- Hence, we request your good self to please delete the addition in this ground alone. The ld. AO has not brought on record material or corroborative evidence any to prove that assessee had any other source of income other than that declared by him and that assessee earned more than what he had declared in his return of income.There is nothing on record which could establish the earning of Rs. 1,17,20,000/- even from undisclosed source. There has to be at-least a way out of which assessee may have earned the amount in FY 2015-16 itself. The amount of Rs.1,17,20,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed. Directly covered matter: It is further submitted that the above matter is now directly covered by the decision of Honble ITAT Jaipur and jodhpur Bench wherein under the same facts and circumstance and in same matter the honble ITAT Jaipur bench has deleted the addition in the case of Gauri Shankar Sharma v/s ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur in ITA No. 35/Jp/2018 dt. 10.04.2019 copy is enclosed. Also refer Dhirendra Singh V/s ITO in ITA No. 1273/Jp/2018 dt. 25.03.2019 . Mukesh Choudhary vs. ITO (2020) 58 CCH 0363 JodhTrib Jiterndra Ojha vs. ITO (2020) 58 CCH 0369 JodhTrib Further we would like to submit that the case laws relied upon in this order and arguments given in this order both may also be considered as cited or given by us before your honor. We are not repeating the same to avoid multiplicity. 7.The ld. AO has contended that after receiving the copy of search statement of Harpal Yadav the assessee did not submit to prove the contrary. But it may be noted that the assessee had asked for the copy of the slip on the basis of which Harpal Yadav gave his statement and also requested for cross examination. The assessee believed that it was only after the receipt of required document a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court in case of Surajmal Mohta Co. vs. A V VisvanathSastry (1954)26 ITR 2(SC) has observed that the proceedings before the Income Tax Officer are judicial proceedings and all the incidents of such judicial proceedings have to be observed before the result is arrived at. In other words, the assessee would have a right to obtain copies of records and all relevant documents before he is called upon to lead evidence in rebuttal. This right has not been taken away by any express provision of Income Tax Act. 10. No additions made on the same ground in case of assessee s brother Sh. Gopal Lal Yadav: It is also to be noted that under the similar question regarding on-money on purchase of shop and alleged surrender of undisclosed income in that respect was also done in the statements recorded u/s 132(4) in case of the assessee s brother Sh. Gopal Lal Yadav. Sh. Gopal Lal Yadav also retracted from the said surrender statement and submitted his reply in response to show cause notice during assessment proceedings (Copy of relevant portions of his statements and retraction affidavit are enclosed at PB Page No.29-35). It may be noted from the assessment order of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thus neither action could be taken under section 153A nor any addition. The addition if any could have been made only after issuing notice under section 153C after recording the satisfaction by the AO of other search persons and making assessment there upon. The learned AO has not acquired any jurisdiction under section 153C and thus the addition of Rs. 1,17,20,000/- as well as the addition of Rs.2,44,93,451/- (in both assessee are is illegal and should be deleted. This is without prejudice to assessee s claim that the alleged addition was otherwise also illegal and liable to be deleted. On this Preposition the assessee has relied upon on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT(Central) Ors. V/s Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) Ors. 432 ITR 384(Del). 14. Addition of Rs. 1,17,20,000/- made under section 68 is illegal : The learned AO has made addition of Rs. 1,17,20,000/- under the provisions of Section 68 of Income Tax Act. Section 68 states as follows: Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the questions and answers recorded in case of statements of his brother Gopal Lal Yadav, while the time of statements recorded was different and the persons recording statements were different in both cases. This fact concludes that the statements were not recorded properly. The assessee has also referred to various question numbering 34, 35, 36, 43 47 which have either not been asked at all or have been asked in different manner but the reply has been recorded as per the wish of the person recording the statement. 2.6 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorizes below and stated that the addition was made on the basis of material seized from Sh. Harpaal Yadav alongwith his statement was recorded during search and also confronted to the assessee. 2.7 We have heard the rival submissions perused the materials available on record and also noted that as the AO has made addition of Rs.1,17,00,0000/- on account of On-Money paid to Sh. Kailash Bhutiya only on the basis of document seized in the premises of Harpal Yadav during search and the statement of Sh. Harpal Yadav recorded u/s 132(4), although the statement of Harpal Yadav was confronted to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that crossexamination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. 7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, a raid was conducted and in that process, statement is said to have been recorded under Section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, which was, later on, retracted by the Assessee. In a situation like this, where the office premises are sealed for many days and during that period, a statement is said to have been recorded under Section 132 (4) of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal s view that only the basis of such retracted statement, addition could not be justified without any other material admissible in evidence, warrants no interference as it is not a substantial question of law. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Harjeev Aggarwal reported in (2016) 290 CTR (Del) 263 and Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Versus Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj) various High Courts have held that addition based solely on statement later on retracted, without anything more, could not be justified in law. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. In view of the above consideration, we are of the view that this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and is, therefore, dismissed. In the case of Smt. Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT [2013] 33 Taxma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73 Rathi Rathi Steel Ltd. ANR. vs. ACIT ANR. 31st May, 2019 (2019) 56 CCH 0102 DelTribIt PCIT v/s Meeta Gutgutia Prop. Ferns Patel Ors 395 ITR 526(Del) held Further the ld. AR has drawn our attention on the statement of Sh. Gopal Lal Yadav brother of the assessee where under the similar question regarding On- Money on purchase of shop and alleged surrender of undisclosed income in that respect was also done or obtained in the statements recorded u/s 132(4) in case of the assessee s brother Sh. Gopal Lal Yadav vide PB 29-30. Shri Gopal Lal Yadav had also retracted said surrender statement and submitted his reply in response to show cause notice during assessment proceedings and relevant portions of his statements and retraction affidavit are placed at PB Page No.29-35. However the same AO while passing the assessment order in the case of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav has not made any addition on this ground and copy of which is placed at Paper Book Pages 36-39D, otherwise she should have made 50-50% addition if any. It shows that there is contradictory approach of the AO in making wrong addition on this account. It is also noteworthy to mention that AO made the addition of Rs. 1,17,20,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or pertaining to a person other than person searched (as referred to in Section 153A), then the only legal recourse available to the department was to proceed in terms of Section 153C of the Act by handing over the same to the AO who has jurisdiction over such person. Here, the assessment has been framed under section 153A on the basis of alleged incriminating material (being the statement recorded under 132(4) of the Act). As noted above, the Assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but that apart, the mandatory procedure under section 153C has not been followed. On this count alone, we find no perversity in the view taken by the ITAT. Therefore, we do not find any substantial question of law that requires our consideration. 11. Accordingly, the present appeals, along with all pending applications, are dismissed. Thus the assessment as well as addition u/s 153A are wrongly made and liable to be deleted. Further the AO has also made the addition u/s 68 which is also incorrect or wrong in view of above deliberations. Thus in view of the above facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the addition of Rs.1,17,00,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee was eligible for exemption u/s 54B subject to purchase of agriculture land and other terms of Section 54B. The assessee complied with provisions of Section 54B and invested amount of Rs. 22,98,700/-in purchase of agriculture land and deposited balance amount of Rs. 1,33,00,000/- in capital gain scheme FDR (2 FDRs of 80 lakh 53 lakh) (for buying agriculture land in future) and thus gain from sale of agriculture land was totally exempted from tax and no capital gain tax was payable on sale of agriculture land. Further, the assessee stated that he had not received any on money on the said sale of agriculture land. No addition can be made merely on the basis of statements of some person without documents substantiating the said transaction/income. Further assessee also seeks copy of relied upon documents in respect of said transaction. Assessee should also be given an opportunity to cross examine Mr. NirmalKedia and any other person who claims to have paid amount exceeding the transaction amount as per purchase deed. Assessee has not surrendered any undisclosed income on this account. Thus no addition can be made in income of assessee on this ground. However, the AO has not accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incriminating documents were found or seized with reference to the purchases/sale of aforesaid land to justify the addition. It is settled principal of law that statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating material for justifying the addition made in the assessment framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the act without any corroborative evidence brought on record. Further I have perused the order of Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 289/Jp/2019 in case of ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur v/s M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP wherein the addition of Rs.5.00 Crores has been deleted in the hands M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP by stating as under. ..But in the case of the assessee, the surrender is not relatable to any material. In the case of assessee no any agreement, receipt, material was found to corroborate the surrender made in survey. Neither such material was found from the possession of assessee group nor from the possession of Shri Jai Singh Yadav group where the search was taken place on the same day. Further, the surrender was obtained under duress, coercion, and in the atmosphere of fear. Further, in view of several discrepancies pointed out by the assessee in recording of the statement, the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. The copy of Sale deed has already been seized by department during search proceedings (Exhibit -2-Page Nos. 59-79). The above land sold was being used for agriculture purposes in the immediately preceding 2 years (evident from the copy of Girdawari OF Khasra No. 15 attached) and hence the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 54B subject to purchase of agriculture land and other terms of Section 54B. The assessee complied with provisions of Section 54B and invested amount of Rs. 2298700/-in purchase of agriculture land and deposited balance amount of Rs. 1,33,00,000/- in capital gain scheme FDR (2 FDRs of 80 lakh 53 lakh)(for buying agriculture land in future)and thus gain from sale of agriculture land was totally exempted from tax and no capital gain tax was payable on sale of agriculture land. Further, the assessee states that he had not received any on money on the said sale of agriculture land. No addition can be made merely on the basis of statements of some person without documents substantiating the said transaction/income. Furtherassessee also seeks copy of relied upon documents in respect of said transaction. Assessee should also be given an opportunity to cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LLP) to evidence the payment of on-money for purchase of agriculture land from the assessee and his brother. Thus no addition can be made kindly refer our submission para no 4 page 17-22 in GOA -1 of the assessee s appeal as also here . 5. Statement has been retracted by the Nirmal Kedia : The addition in income of assessee has been made solely on the basis of search statement of Mr. Nirmal Kumar Kedia (partner Kedia Real Estate LLP) in his case not in the case of assessee, who has himself retracted from his search statements and has denied paying any on-money to assessee and his brother. As now the additions has also been deleted by the Honble ITAT as stated above. 6.The assessee had out rightly denied receiving any on-money on sale of agriculture land to Kedia Realestate LLP and also contended that had he received the on-money then it must have been reflected in some manner like deposit in bank or unexplained investment in some asset, but no such instances are there. Further logically speaking nobody will leave a huge amount of Rs. 5 crore on security of a post dated cheque. The alleged cheque of Rs. 5 crore has also not been found from any of the searched premises. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings, the assessee had requested for cross examination of Mr. Nirmal Kumar Kedia and any other person who had owned the payment of on-money to assessee, by way of written request as well as orally. But the ld. AO has neither given opportunity to cross examine nor she provided copy of paper slip. And on this aspect we have already submitted hereinabove. 11.2 The copy of statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) were not given to assessee inspite of repeated oral reminders to ADIT(Inv) together with letters dated 11/01/2017 21/03/2017 . It was on 11/05/2017, that the assessee received copy of his statements from Central Circle-3. The assessee then found that there is alleged surrender of income being recorded in his statement taken on 19.11.2016. In case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta v. CIT (1958) 33 lTR 786 at I 791(All), it has been held that If an affidavit is filed by an assessee and he is neither cross-examined on that point nor is he called upon by the department to produce any ' t documentary evidence, the assessee may assume that the Income tax authorities are satisfied with the affidavit as sufficient proof on that point in question. 3.4.2 We would also refer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been found either in the possession of the assessee or in the possession of M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP except only a statement of Sh. Nirmal Kedia, who had retracted the same later on. To this effect, the ld. CIT(A) and this Bench has deleted the addition in the hands of M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP vide order in ACIT Central Circle- Jaipur v/s M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP in ITA No. 127 289/Jp/2019 dt.03.06.219. wherein Tribunal has held as under:- 32. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that the addition of Rs. 5.00 crores were made on account of alleged undisclosed income alleged to be used for making undisclosed payment for purchases of agriculture land purchased from Shri Jai Singh Yadav. The addition was made solely on the basis of search statement of Shri Nirmal Kedia partner of the assessee, which were retracted later-on, without having any corroborative evidence/document to prove the same to be correct. 39. It is clear from the record that no corroborative or incriminating material was linked to the addition. The A.O made the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- merely on the basis of stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 5.00 crores. Hence, this ground of the revenue s appeal is dismissed. Thus by following the judgment of this Co-Ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur v/s M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP in ITA No. 289/Jp/2019 dt. 03.06.2019 and ld. CIT(A) s order deleting the addition, we concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6.1 Now we take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.167/JP/2022 in the case of Shri Gopal Yadav wherein moot issue is deletion of addition of Rs. Rs.2,44,93,451/- on account of long term capital gain by the ld.CIT(A). 6.2 After hearing both the parties, we find that this issue has already been dealt with hereinabove in the case of Shri Jai Singh Yadav (supra), brother of the assessee, where the ITAT has confirmed the action of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,44,93,451/-. Therefore, the decision taken by us in the case of Shri Jai Singh Yadav (ITA No. 168/JP./2022) shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Shri Gopal Yadav. Thus, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.. Order pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
