Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

company had a separate corporate existence, it is operated by key person/directors only and Shri Sanjeev Agarwal was a key functionary. Therefore, the CIT(A) is wrong in giving benefit to assessee that the presumption u/s 292C is not applicable.

(ii) That, the JVA talks of 11 acres which is approximately near to 10.80 acres mentioned in impounded document. Further, the JVA is entered on 05.05.2016 and the dates mentioned in the impounded document are approximately same. Thus, the circumstances are clearly corroborated.

(iii) That, there is no explanation qua the transaction of Rs.

10,57,00,000/- noted in the impounded document from assessee's side.

ACIT (Central)-2, Bhopal, vs. Pramada Estates India Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal IT(SS)A Nos. 9 & 10/Ind/2024 - AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

17. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee made following contentions:

(i) That the impugned document was impounded during an earlier and separate survey conducted u/s 133A by department on Shri Sanjeev Agarwal / M/s Agrawal Construction. The impounded document was not found from assessee or during any proceeding of assessee.

(iii) That the impounded document does not contain name of assessee.

That apart, the assessee's land was sized 11 acres and the JVA was for 8.71 acres. These vital facts are clearly mentioned in Preliminary portion on Page 11 of JVA and Clause 19 on Page 24 of JVA (Paper- Book Page 17 and 25). However, the impounded document is for 10.80 acres. Thus, the impounded document has no corroboration with assessee/assessee's JVA and the AO has wrongly attributed the impounded document to assessee/assessee's JVA on mere surmise or conjecture.

(iv) Lastly, he submitted that the CIT(A) has passed a detailed order considering entire position of case. Hence the same must be upheld. ACIT (Central)-2, Bhopal, vs. Pramada Estates India Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal IT(SS)A Nos. 9 & 10/Ind/2024 - AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

18. We have considered rival submission of both sides and perused the documents held on record including the orders of lower-authorities. Admittedly, the AO has made impugned addition solely on the basis of a document impounded from i-phone of Shri Sanjeev Agarwal. Therefore, several questions arise. Firstly, it becomes important to ascertain as to where and how the impugned document was impounded by authorities and whether the presumption u/s 292C would apply? Undisputably, there was an independent survey on Shri Sanjeev Agarwal / M/s Agarwal Construction (a partnership firm in which Shri Sanjeev Agarwal was a partner) on 28.11.2016 and during such survey, the impugned document was impounded from i-phone of Shri Sanjeev Agarwal. Notably, it was not found during search upon assessee. The CIT(A) has also made a clear finding that the impugned document was found from Shri Sanjeev Agarwal in his capacity as partner in M/s Agarwal Construction and not from the premise of assessee or during assessee's proceeding. Further, as can be seen from impounded document, it nowhere bears the name of assessee. When it is so, we agree with Ld. CIT(A) that the presumption u/s 292C is not available to AO for drawing any conclusion for or against assessee. Secondly, it becomes important to know as to what was the explanation given by Shri Sanjeev Agarwal when he was confronted by survey authorities during survey of Shri Sanjvee Agarwal/M/s Agarwal Construction itself because that explanation would be an instant explanation and credible in absence of any retraction or rebuttal. For this purpose, the Q.No. 9 and 10 as recorded ACIT (Central)-2, Bhopal, vs. Pramada Estates India Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal IT(SS)A Nos. 9 & 10/Ind/2024 - AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 by authorities becomes relevant. We have already re-produced those questions and replies in earlier para of this order. On perusal, one can find that Shri Sanjeev Agarwal instantly replied that the noting in impounded document was some calculation for making a decision but it could not materialise due to technical weakness in land and delay in TNCP permission. Thus, the nature of document is explained by Shri Sanjeev Agarwal himself in the very statements recorded during survey. That apart, the departmental Order-Sheet filed by assessee at Page 94 of Paper-Book also shows that Shri Sanjeev Agarwal personally attended the office of AO during assessment-proceeding of assessee and in reply to question put by AO, he re-confirmed his earlier explanation during survey. Thus, when it is submitted by Sanjeev Agarwal, the person from whose custody and in whose proceeding the document was impounded, that the calculation never materialised, how can the AO assume or treat that the impounded document showed that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 10,57,00,000/-? Admittedly, the AO has no other document or basis to draw or support such a conclusion. Thirdly, the Ld. AR has successfully demonstrated that the assessee's land was sized 11 acres and the JVA was for 8.71 acres whereas the impounded document shows financial transaction for 10.80 acres. Thus, the impounded document has no corroboration with assessee/assessee's JVA and the AO has wrongly attributed the impounded document to assessee/assessee's JVA. Lastly, it is also a question that what action was taken by department against the payer of money (i.e. JV Partner)? The ACIT (Central)-2, Bhopal, vs. Pramada Estates India Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal IT(SS)A Nos. 9 & 10/Ind/2024 - AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 CIT(A) has made a clear finding that the department has not made any addition in the hands of JV Partner. Considering all these vital aspects, the addition made by AO remains an unproved receipt/income of assessee having been inferred by AO on mere surmise and conjecture. Hence, we do not find any justification or strength in the addition made by AO. Consequently, we are inclined to approve the CIT(A)'s action of deleting the addition. The grounds raised by revenue and accordingly the present appeal is rejected.