Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) Why these document should not be treated as belong to you u/s 132(4A) of the I T Act, 1961.
(b) Why those should not be treated as true?

Ans. The printouts of the documents shown to me taken from the hard disk from my office is pertaining to my various clients, it does not pertain to me in many manner whatsoever. These documents are drafted under the instruction of my various clients in discharge of my professional duty/obligation. Any other information/actual details of money transaction is not my knowledge. Any other details pertaining to the same is protected under the privileged communication under the Indian evidence Act."

5.11 Subsequently, the assessee filed a letter from Sh. Naresh Gupta, wherein he has submitted that said draft deed was as a result of preparation of document by way of cut-and-paste of ITA No.2001 & 3256/Del/2017 paragraphs from other documents. A copy of the said letter is available on page 3 of the paper book. Content of the said letter are reproduced as under:

Dated: 19.03.2016 "The ACIT, Circle 26, New Delhi, Sub: In the case of Bharat Kumar, for the assessment year 2008-2009, (Reference property No. J-31, N.D.S.E.-I, New Delhi), Sir, I state that I am in to profession of providing consultancy services to my various Clients j regarding Real Estate Matters. During the course of consultancy, I do draft various documents under the instruction of Clients. Sometimes under the instructions of seller, sometimes under the instructions of Purchaser and sometimes under the instructions of Real Estate Agents. I do not remember as to under whom instruction I drafted the document picked-up from my hard disk, regarding property No. J-31, situated N.D.S.E.-I, New Delhi.
Regards Sd/-
NARESH GUPTA (ADVOCATE)"
5.12 On perusal of the statement and letter of Sh. Naresh Gupta, we find that though he initially admitted that draft document was prepared on the direction of the assessee, however, he has denied of any knowledge of information/actual details of money transaction between the buyer and assessee. No other evidence corroborating the payment in cash by the buyer to the assessee has been either found in the course of the search or collected in the course of assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer, ITA No.2001 & 3256/Del/2017 which could substantiate receipt of alleged cash amount recorded in the draft agreement to sale.
5.13 It is undisputed that the draft agreement to sell is not signed either by the purchaser or the seller. The author of the draft has denied any knowledge of alleged payment recorded in the draft. No other evidence, like a statement of the buyer or any valuation report regarding the sale value of the property are available on record. In our opinion, unless there are enough corroborative evidence to show that the payments as noted in the draft agreement to sell was actually received by the assessee, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee merely on the basis of unsigned draft agreement to sale. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that part of the document is found to be true and thus the balance should also be treated as true is not correct and instant case the entire document found is a draft prepared by the deed writer, which is not signed by any of the party mentioned in the said draft. Such an unsigned document cannot be made basis of presumption that the assessee received cash on sale of the property. The assessee has been subjected to search but no other documentary evidence of receipt of cash by the assessee has been found in the course of the search. We also note that no attempt has been made by the Assessing Officer to make an enquiry from the buyer or to ascertain the prevalent market value of the property sold by the assessee.