Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. As the revenue in its present appeal has only assailed before us the deletion of the addition of Rs. 30,37,025/-, therefore, we confine ourselves to the said aspect only. Admittedly, in the course of the search and seizure proceedings an unsigned „draft agreement‟ between the assessee and Shri Paresh Rastogi s/o Sri. L.C Rastogi, R/o. 14/1, Jopling Road, Lucknow for purchase by the assessee of a Unit No. 116, in a complex known as "KS Trident", Lower ground floor, Property No. 10, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, admeasuring 94.70 sq. mtr. was found and seized from the premises of M/s Four ways Travel Pvt. Ltd. viz. Annexure A-1, Page No. 30 to 40. As per the said „draft agreement‟, the purchase consideration of the property was stated as Rs.42,33,500/-. However, it was observed by the A.O that as per the seized Annexure A-1, Page No. 43 which was a „cost sheet‟ of the property, the purchase price was shown at Rs.72,60,525/-. On the P a g e | 14 ITA No.754 & 1122/Mum/2015 AYs. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-8(4) Vs. Indo Saudi Services basis of the aforesaid details, the A.O in the absence of any explanation as regards the aforesaid variance made an addition of Rs.30,37,025/- [Rs. 72,60,525/- (-) Rs. 42,33,500/-] towards suppressed investment of the assessee towards purchase of the property under consideration. On appeal, the assessee furnished with the CIT(A) a „registered agreement‟, dated 28.05.2009 for Rs. 1,12,16,500/- pertaining to purchase of a property i.e Units No. 117 & 118 in a commercial complex viz. "KS Trident", Lower Ground Floor, 10, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow (admeasuring 217.49 Sq. mtr) from M/s Rohtas Projects Ltd., Regd. Office: 27/18, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Marg, Lucknow. It was the claim of the assessee that as it had purchased the aforesaid property viz. Units No. 117 & 118 in "KS Trident", Lower Ground Floor, 10, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow (admeasuring 217.49 Sq. mtr) for a consideration of Rs. 1,12,16,500/- , which was more than the amount appearing in the „draft agreement‟, therefore, the A.O had erred in making an addition of Rs. 30,37,025/- in its hands. We find that the CIT(A) observing that the adverse inferences as regards the investment made by the assessee towards purchase of property were drawn by the A.O only on the basis of general notings on the „loose sheets‟ seized during the course of search proceedings, and not on the basis of any corroborative documentary evidence which could prove that any on-money had actually changed hands, thus deleted the addition of Rs. 30,37,025/- made by the A.O.

11. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration and find that the issue has not been correctly appreciated by the CIT(A). As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, the issue before the A.O/CIT(A) as regards the unexplained investment of Rs. 30,37,025/- was in context of a Unit No, 116 in a complex viz. "KS Trident", Lower Ground Floor, 10, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow (admeasuring 94.70 Sq. mtr). As is P a g e | 15 ITA No.754 & 1122/Mum/2015 AYs. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-8(4) Vs. Indo Saudi Services discernible from a perusal of an unsigned „draft agreement‟ viz. Annexure A-1, Page 30-40 that was seized from the premises of M/s Four ways Travels Pvt. Ltd., the assessee had agreed to purchase the aforesaid property viz. Unit No, 116, in "KS Trident", Lower Ground Floor, 10, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow (admeasuring 94.70 Sq. mtr) for a consideration of Rs. 42,23,500/- (exclusive of stamp duty charges : Rs. 2,95,700/- and other registration charges). As per the seized document viz. Annexure A-1, Page 41 which was a "Cost sheet- Statement of A/c" of Unit No. 116, the „basic sale price‟ of Unit No. 116 was stated at Rs. 42,23,500/-. Further, as per certain other seized documents viz. Annexure A-1, Page 42-43 which were also stated to be "Cost sheet- Statement of A/c" of Unit No. 116, the total sale price was stated at Rs. 71,58,625/- and 72,60,525/-, respectively. As such, there was a clear variance in the purchase price mentioned in Annexure A-1, Page 30-40 and Page 41 on the one hand, and that as was discernible from Annexure A-1, Page 42-43 on the other hand. We find that it was never the claim of the assessee before the A.O that it had not made any investment towards purchase of Unit No. 116 in commercial complex "KS Trident", Lower Ground Floor, 10, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow (admeasuring 94.70 Sq. mtr). Rather, in the course of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) the assessee had placed on record a „registered agreement‟ for Rs. 1,12,16,500/- and had claimed that as the purchase price of the same was more than the amount appearing in the „draft agreement‟, therefore, no addition made by the A.O on account of suppressed purchase consideration could be sustained. We find that the CIT(A) summarily accepted the aforesaid claim of the assessee and further observing that the addition of Rs. 30,37,025/- towards payment of on-money was based on „loose papers‟ and not supported by any corroborative documentary evidence, thus deleted the said addition. In our P a g e | 16 ITA No.754 & 1122/Mum/2015 AYs. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-8(4) Vs. Indo Saudi Services considered view the CIT(A) had proceeded with on the basis of incorrect facts. As is discernible from a perusal of the „registered agreement‟, dated 28.05.2009 for Rs. 1,12,16,500/- that was filed by the assessee for the first time before the CIT(A), the same pertained to property viz. Units No. 117 & 118 in a commercial complex viz. "KS Trident", Lower Ground Floor, 10, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow (admeasuring 217.49 Sq. mtr) that was purchased by the assessee from M/s Rohtas Projects Ltd., Regd. Office: 27/18, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Marg, Lucknow. In our considered view, the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) while vacating the observations of the A.O as regards the suppressed investment of the assessee towards purchase of Unit No. 116 have been arrived at on the basis of misconceived facts. In fact, the CIT(A) had failed to appreciate that the „registered agreement‟ for Rs. 1,12,16,500/- furnished by the assessee before him was in context of purchase of Units No. 117 & 118 and not in context of Unit No. 116. We find that though the A.O in his „remand report‟, dated 14.07.2014 had brought it to the notice of the CIT(A) that the „draft agreement‟ under consideration was in context of a property having an area of 94 sq. mtr., while for the „registered agreement‟ for Rs. 1,12,16,500/- filed by the assessee before him was in respect of some other property having an area of 217.49 sq. mtr., however, the said material fact was not considered by the first appellate authority. Be that as it may, in our considered view the contents of the seized document viz. Annexure A-1/Page 30-40 which is an unsigned „draft agreement‟ between the assessee and Shri Paresh Rastogi s/o Sri. L.C Rastogi, R/o. 14/1, Jopling Road, Lucknow, in context of purchase by the assessee of a Unit No. 116 in a commercial complex i.e "KS Trident", Lower ground floor, Property No. 10, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, admeasuring 94.70 sq. mtr., had not been verified by the lower authorities. Insofar the observations of the CIT(A) that the addition in context of the issue P a g e | 17 ITA No.754 & 1122/Mum/2015 AYs. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-8(4) Vs. Indo Saudi Services under consideration was merely based on the contents of certain „loose sheets‟ and was not corroborated by any documentary evidence, we are afraid that the said observation in the backdrop of the nature of the documents found during the course of the search proceedings does not find favour with us. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations restore the matter to the file of the A.O, with a direction to verify as to whether the aforementioned property i.e Unit No. 116 in the complex i.e "KS Trident", Lower ground floor, Property No. 10, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, admeasuring 94.70 sq. mtr., was ever purchased/transacted by the assessee, either directly or indirectly during the year under consideration, or not. The A.O for making such verification would be at a liberty to call for such information/examine the aforementioned seller party i.e Sri Paresh Rastogi S/o Sri L.C. Rastogi, & 14/1, Joppling Raod, Lucknow; record the statement of the assessee; as also make necessary verifications from the occupants of the property; or in any other manner as he deems fit. The matter is set aside to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudications in terms of our aforesaid observations. The Ground of appeal No 2 is allowed for statistical purposes.