9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner, does not establish that the information pertains to the petitioner. As noted above, the information is that there was an Agreement to Sell between two separate parties. Therefore, the assumption that the said information pertained to the petitioner is clearly erroneous. It appears that the AO has, based on the image of the Agreement to Sell sent on Whatsapp, assumed the value of one floor of the property and based on this assumption, the AO is seeking to impute that said value in a separate transaction involving the petitioner. The only question to be addressed is, whether any asset, bullion, jewellery, books of account, documents were found during search, which either belonged to the petitioner or contained information perta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner. Accordingly, this court passed an order directing the Revenue to file an affidavit, clearly setting out the material found during the search proceedings, which contained such information and also produce the said material on record before the Court on the next date of hearing. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2024, an affidavit has been filed. It is affirmed in the said affidavit that a search was conducted at the residence of one Sh. Praveen K. Jain. The date of the search is not mentioned in the affidavit. But this court is informed that the said search was conducted on 10.01.2021. It is stated that during the course of the search, property deeds involving cash transactions were found. It is stated that from the mobile phon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mobile phone of Sh. Vaibhav Jain, who is the husband of Smt. Ishita Varshney Jain. ii. The agreement to sell identifies the seller of the ground floor of Property No. 319, Nirman Vihar, Delhi, as Sh. Dinesh Mahajan. Upon examination of the sale deed executed with Smt. Ishita Varshney Jain on 14.06.2021, it is confirmed that the seller is the same, i.e., Sh. Dinesh Mahajan. It is evident that, instead of selling the property to Sh. Shashi Chawla, as initially indicated, Sh. Dinesh Mahajan sold the property to Smt. Ishita Varshney Jain. iii. As per the agreement to sell, the price of one floor is stated to be Rs. 2,48,50,000 (half of Rs. 4,97,00,000), indicating that the actual consideration paid by the buyer was Rs. 2,48,50,000. iv. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner is clearly erroneous. It appears that the Assessing Officer has, based on the image of the Agreement to Sell sent on Whatsapp, assumed the value of one floor of the property and based on this assumption, the AO is seeking to impute that said value in a separate transaction involving the petitioner. 6. We do not consider it apposite or necessary to comment on this train of reasoning, as the scope of examination in this petition is limited. The only question to be addressed is, whether any asset, bullion, jewellery, books of account, documents were found during search, which either belonged to the petitioner or contained information pertaining to the petitioner. The fact that the image suggested a value of a particular prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
