9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment for the purchase of this property. Though it is true that the Assessee in his statement recorded during the search has stated to have paid Rs. 36,00,000/- as total consideration for the purchase of this property but other than his statement the Department could not bring any incriminating document on record to substantiate its claim of cash payment. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Mantri Share Brokers (P.) Ltd. [ 2018 (7) TMI 200 - SC ORDER] has held that mere statement recorded during the search cannot be treated as incriminating document for the addition in a search case, therefore, the CIT(A) finding on this issue cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Assessee s appeal on Ground Nos. 1 to 3 stand allowed. Addition on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h cannot be an incriminating evidence and further without making any enquiries from the seller, the very basis of making the addition on the basis of oral statement, ignoring the documentary evidence of the valid registration, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition in view of the judgment in the case of K.P. Varghese, reported in 131 ITR 597. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate that the documentary evidence had to be relied upon against the oral evidence as per binding judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawat Mull, reported in 87 ITR 349. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10 lacs on the basis of dump document, though, the addition has been deleted fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount, name of persons from whom they have taken along with dates are mentioned. The Assessing Officer has taken them as sources of cash component of payment for the purchase of the property and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition. During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee has filed a written submission on this issue which are as under: - 2 . a) It is a fact that the assessee is an illiterate person dealing in trading of Bananas and is carrying on this business at Jalandhar. The whole basis of making the addition is borne out from the order of Assessing Officer starting from pages 35 to 43. The Ld. Assessing Officer after referring to statement has assumed that assessee has paid cash of Rs. 25,85,000/-, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as made the addition of Rs. 25,85,000/- as alleged amount paid in cash towards the purchase of property, which is a wrong assumption on the part of the Assessing Officer. x). Our reply as quoted by the Assessing Officer at page 42, is being relied upon and there is no adverse view drawn on the basis of same statement in the case of his wife, Smt. Anita Devi. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the submissions of the assessee only by relying upon the statement as recorded during search, has confirmed the addition and this finding has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) at page 22 to 25 of his order. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have considered the issue and we have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue in the case of CIT Vs. Mantri Share Brokers (P.) Ltd., (supra) and the Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Partap Singh Rajendra Chamola Co. In this case, the ITAT Chandigarh Bench has held No addition in block assessment can be made solely on the basis of statements recorded during search. Such statements cannot be treated as incriminating material found in the course of search. 9. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 10. From the documents filed before us, it is clear that there is no specific incriminating document to prove the payment of Rs. 25,85,000/- over and above the cheque payment of Rs. 10,15,000/- by the Assessee for the purchase of the immovable property. In fact, there are some note pads which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date on the said document and neither it indicates whether the amount has been paid or received. Therefore, any Ad-Hoc / Dumb Document without any corroborative evidence /finding that the alleged documents have materialized into transactions cannot be deemed to be the income of the assessee. It is respectfully submitted that even in your SCN, it is not clear as to what is the presumption being drawn against the assessee whether it is of an unexplained asset / investment / cash / credit/ money / expenditure and this is for the simple reason that it is a dumb document and it is submitted that not every noting on a rough paper or diary can be presumed as an incriminating material against the assessee resulting in some unreported / undisclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
