Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The defendant counsel for the assesse vehemently supported the impugned order, and contended that the unsigned MOU and Supplement MOU by either of the parties and being not corroborated with supporting material evidence by the AO in the assessment proceedings has no evidentiary value (APB, Pgs. 27-32). The documents as highlighted in the assessment order does not give any support to Assessing Officer's preliminary view of purchase consideration being at Rs. 11.55 Crore. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the documents seized as page 1 & 2 of A-2 DNR which records various payment made to Sh. Surjit Singh and all of these payments have been found recorded in the books of account of the appellant and verified accordingly during remand proceedings by the Assessing Officer. He prayed that the impugned order is passed by the Ld. CIT(A) discussing and analyzing the facts of all the documents seized during search and passed a well-reasoned order duly supported with the judgement of higher judicial forum and hence, he prayed that it may be sustained.

10. Heard rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order, written submissions and case law cited before us. It is admitted facts on record that the disputed seized MOU are unsigned documents by either of the parties to the agreement and therefore I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 cannot be said to be of any evidentiary value for the purpose of preliminary or final view of aforesaid sale consideration of 11.05 acre. The Assessing Officer in this pursuit has relied upon another supplementary agreement MOU dated 18.3.2008 which is again not signed by either of the parties therefore it cannot lend any credence to the first MOU as both are unsigned and therefore could be in the nature of evidence for the proposed consideration for purchase of land by appellant. The Assessing Officer further has relied upon document at 168 of A-9/DNB-1 which record details of part payment of Rs. 11,94,37,570/- and the same have been held by the Assessing Officer to be corroborating with the sale consideration recorded in the MOU at 11.55 Crore. This document has been shown by the appellant to be accounted for in its books of accounts as substantial payments out of the same have been made to specific parties through cheque and the same had been verified by the Assessing Officer as well during remand proceeding. Therefore, this document as highlighted in the assessment order does not give any support to Assessing Officer's preliminary view of purchase consideration being at Rs. 11.55 Crore. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the documents seized as page 1 & 2 of A-2 DNR which records various payment made to Sh. Surjit Singh and all of these payments have been found recorded in the books of account of the appellant and accordingly, verified during remand proceedings by the Assessing Officer.

20. He also relied upon the coordinate bench decision in the case of ITO vs Surjit Singh order dated 20/06/2023, in ITA No 434/ASR/2016, to submit that additions cannot be sustained on the basis of unsigned agreement or MOU ( in this case it is unsigned loose sheet of paper).

I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20