Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Vikas Jain (ITAT Delhi)
Apparently, it appears that the seized document was found at a place other than the place where the search on the assessee has been carried out. Thus, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that this document was found in possession or control of the assessee. If that be so, then the presumption under section 132(4A) will not be available. Further, in case such document was not found in the course of the search on the assessee then the same cannot be the subject matter for addition in assessment proceeding under section 153A of the Act. Since, the facts on record are not clear and all the issues as stated hereinabove have not been taken into due consideration by the lower authorities, we deem it fit to set aside the order passed by the authorities below to the file of the AO with a direction to examine each of the above issues and, thereafter, frame a fresh assessment order in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT (A)} vide dated 29.04.2014 and challenges the deletion of addition of Rs. 2,09,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained investment.
2.0 The brief facts of the case are that in this case a search and seizure operation was carried out on the assessee on 10.02.2011. Consequent, to that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the document identified as ‘MA-7/Annx-A-12/Page 104 and 103’ found and seized from the premises 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase – V, Gurgaon, Haryana. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the transaction recorded in the seized document was related to the purchase of property B-1/238, GF & FF, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi from M/s Chawla Buildwell P. Ltd. As against this, the contention of the assessee was that he had not entered into any such transaction and further that in the seized document there was no identity of the person to whom the alleged payment/s were stated to have been made by the assessee and that there were no details of the property for which the payment was alleged to have been made. It was also the contention of the assessee that there no sale consideration was stated in the said seized document and further that there is was neither any signature of the buyer/seller nor signature/s of any witness/es on the said document. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make an addition of Rs.2,09,50,000/- as unexplained investment by holding that the property transaction was executed for a total amount of Rs.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
