9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 358/09-10, 359/2009-10 and 360/2009- 10; respectively. Relevant proceedings in the former twin assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are under section 153C read with section 143(3) and under section 143(3) in the last assessment years 2008-09 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the Revenue's instant three appeals as well as assessee's cross objections involve a common backdrop of facts. Learned departmental authorities appear to have carried out a search action on 05.12.2007 in M/s. Kohinoor Foods Ltd. and its group of cases which allegedly led it to seizure of various incriminating documents "belonging" to the assessee. The Revenue thereafter initiated section 153C's proceedings in assessee's case vide satisfaction note dated 04.11.2009 (page 3 in the paper-book) in the former twin assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. There is no dispute between the parties that the last assessment year before assessment year 2008-09 in fact involves an assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 51 lacs was made by M/s CPL on 23.03.05 and another amount of Rs. I Crore each in two cheques dated 06.04.05. Thus total amount received in cheque by the assessee including the amount of Rs. 1.01 Crores recorded on page 67 was for Rs. 3.52 Crores which was subsequently returned back to M/s Clarion Properties Ltd. through three different cheques by 10.05.06. That this has been duly reflected in the respective balance sheets. The appellant has also reiterated his earlier, contention in his latest submission dated 23.04.2012 that the hand written note on page 67 of the diary was prepared on Tuesday the 22nd March, 2005 which is supported by the fact that the same contains the date 22.03.05 printed on it. That the other notings on this page are all projections and were not received by the appellant except an amount of Rs. 1.01 Crores. Reference has also been made to details of other payments received in cheque for Rs. 52 lacs on 23.03.05 and Rs. 2 Crores on 06.04.05. The AO has also referred to the fact that that these recordings have been made by Ms. Kanika Verma who's Statement on oath was recorded during the search. That the copy of the statement of Ms. Kanika was never s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been registered in favour of the proposed buyer and the MOU signed. Further even the AO in his order for upholding the addition to income has merely observed that the amount of Rs. 8.99 appears to have been forfeited by the assessee on cancellation of the deal which is a normal practice in property deals and that no hard or corroborative evidence has been brought on record. Thus the entire addition to income for Rs. 8.99 Crores is essentially based on two set of assumptions one being that the cash installments of Rs. 4 Crores and Rs. 4.9 Crores mentioned on page 67 were actually received by the assessee on 10.04.05 and 30.04.05 and the other assumption that even while the deal has been cancelled the amount of Rs. 8.99 Crores appears to have been forfeited by the assessee. On a balance of scale it has to be decided on reasonable probability that whether the said document unequivocally or unmistakably leads to the conclusion that the amounts on 10.04.05 for Rs. 4 Crores and 30.04.05 for Rs. 4.99 Crores were in fact paid to the appellant. The AO has merely relied upon the notings on page 67 the contents of which are not clear and from which no definite evidence as to receipt of u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion herein has concluded that no such deal could sail through so as to result in any addition in the assessee's hands. 8. We are of the considered view, be it on the issue of validity of the impugned assessment or on merits that the Revenue's instant sole substantive ground has to be declined only as the above seized document which is neither signed by the assessee nor its name is mentioned therein, could be held as "belonging" to it nor contents lead to any inference of actual on-money payment forming subject matter of addition in the assessee's hands. We thus reject the Revenue's instant sole substantive ground as well as the "lead" appeal ITA No. 5051/Del/2012 in very terms. 9. The outcome would be hardly any different in Revenue's second appeal ITA No. 4011/Del/2011 for assessment year 2007- 08, wherein it endeavours to revive the Assessing Officer's action making the alleged unaccounted cash payment addition of Rs. 20,97,40,000/- in the assessee's hands. Learned CIT(DR) is indeed very fair in taking us to the assessment findings dated 30.12.2009 at pages 2 and 3 wherein same rough jottings and alleged map was seized from the searched person (page 9, Annexure- A-1), which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
