Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) Further, the factual position is this that the aforesaid document has been retrieved from the mobile phone of Sh. Ashok Jain and that sale agreement was neither signed by any of the parties nor was found from the possession of the appellant. Therefore, this unsigned agreement has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. It is observed that the AO has made the addition only on the basis of the said unsigned deed and no corroborative evidence has been brought on record to show that the appellant has received an amount of Rs. 6.21 Crores from the purchasers. Infact on perusal of the statement of Sh. Ashok Jain, it is observed that he has stated to have taken a loan of Rs. 3.58 Crores from Sh. Ghanshyam Saini for selling the complete stake in Paradizo Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and stated that the deal did not mature. Further, it is observed that no enquiry was conducted by the AO from the appellant in this regard. The AO has referred to the statement of Sh. Vijay Gupta, brother of the appellant, recorded during the course of search wherein, he too denied of having any knowledge with respect to the aforesaid sale of shares of Paradizo Resorts. Thus the AO has relied upon the unsigned Ikrarnama and whatsapp chats, which have been categorically denied by the aforesaid persons in their statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act by stating that the deal did not materialize. I find that if the transaction had taken place in the subject AY, the shares would have been transferred by the appellant to the purchasers. However, nothing in this regard has been brought on record by the AO.