9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own in various judgments of different Benches of the ITAT/High Courts that no addition could be made on the basis of 'What Sapp' messages only as the same has no evidencery value. 3. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the statement of the sellers of the land had been recorded during the benami proceedings, initiated against the assessee and the sellers have confirmed that the plot was sold by them as per amount mentioned in the title deed executed and, as such, that documentary evidence have wrongly been ignored by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the What Sapp message is not incriminating material found during the course of search and, as such, on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble 'Apex Court' in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., no addition is called in the absence of any incriminating evidence. 5. a). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving the benefit of Rs. 30 lacs of the income as declared in the return of income as per para 5.2.11 of the order, against the declared income of Rs. 40,10,000/- available with the assessee. b).That the said bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o which, he replied that the said Mobile belongs to his wife, Smt. Harvinder Kaur. He further stated that the said Mobile was gifted to her by her parents on the occasion of their marriage anniversary in 2017 5.1 Further, as it is seen from the assessment order that though Sh. Surinder Singh Bindra filed written submissions that these are rough jottings and the hand writing does not appear to his or his family members still then the AO determined the purchase consideration of the land in question on the basis of cloned images, which was in the name of assessee and her father, Sh. Manjeet Singh. By extrapolating the figures noted in the images of Mobile, purchase consideration to the tune of Rs. 2,28,57,080/- was determined by the AO and after excluding the disclosed consideration of Rs. 11 lacs each by the assessee and her father,. Sh. Manjeet Singh, totaling to Rs. 22 lacs the undisclosed consideration to the tune of Rs. 2,06,57,068/- towards the purchase of plot by the assessee and Sh. Manjeet Singh. It was further stated by the AO that since the payments were made partly in financial year 2016-17 and partly in Asstt. Year 2017-18. He made the addition of Rs. 1,56,25,000/- as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om Sh. Manjeet Singh and no material evidence has been brought on record to determine the unrealistic purchase consideration to the tune of 2, 28,00,000/-. 8.3 It was further submitted before us that the whole case has been made out by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) only on the basis of images in the 'Mobile data' without, there being any corroborating evidence in possession of the AO. Further, it was argued that the said images in the Mobile data, which are in two figures have been extrapolated without assigning any reason and without confronting the same to the assessee. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the assessee was staying in the same house, being the wife of Sh. Surinder Singh Bindra and neither during the course of search nor in post search investigation, anything was confronted to the assessee. Further, it was brought to our notice that the case of the assessee was referred to 'Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988' Unit and these facts have been mentioned before the Ld. CIT(A). The seller of the property namely, Sh. Harkindar Singh S/o late Sh. Gurcharanjit Singh, residing at House No.1, Village Aayali Khura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been followed. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause, 394 ITR 220 that, where the figures in the seized documents have been extrapolated, no addition could be made on such extrapolated figures. Alternatively, by way of ground No.5 (a), it was argued before us that the assessee had accumulated funds as per para 5.2.10 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 40,10,000/- and the Ld. CIT(A) has given a benefit on adhoc basis of Rs. 30 lacs and, thus, additional benefit of Rs. 10 lacs ought to be given if for the sake of addition, the addition was to be sustained. 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. AO as well as of the Ld. CIT(A) and argued before us that the said images from the Mobile data are clear proof of the fact that the undisclosed consideration has been paid for the purchase of plot and, thus, sought confirmation of addition as made by the Ld. CIT(A). 9.1 Regarding the statements before the 'PBPT, it was argued before us that the said proceeding were independent and have no relevance to the facts of the case. 10. In Rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, submitted that the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017-18, at Rs. 50,32,068/-, after giving benefit of Rs. 22 lacs, which was registered amount as per the title deed by the AO. The Ld. CIT (A) reduced the addition to ½, since it was held by him that ½ share belongs to Sh. Manjeet Singh and he confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 78,12,500/- as per finding given by the Ld. CIT(A), for financial year 2016-17 Rs. 25,16,034/-. It is a fact that no statement of the assessee had been recorded, either during search or during post search or during the course of assessment proceedings and no independent enquiries or any corroborative evidence is there on record for making the addition of payment of 'on money' by the assessee. It is also a fact that the figures in the 'Mobile images' have been extrapolated, without any reason. No addition could be made on account of such 'Mobile data' or loose paper in the absence of corroborative evidence, for which, the reliance has been placed by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee on Bombay High Court, different Benches of the ITAT and further reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause reported in 394 ITR 220 are quite apt. Cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
