Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,13,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 69B of the I.T Act on account of unaccounted investment in land despite the facts that the addition has been made on the basis of incriminating details/document recovered during the search proceedings.

(4) In addition to the ground No.3 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,13,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 69B of the I. T Act on account of unaccounted investment in land observing that such unsigned draft agreement has no evidentiary value and actual transaction cannot be presumed merely on the basis of such unsigned document without appreciating the fact that the document contains all the details related to the transaction of the land among seller(s) and purchaser(s) and the assessee has totally failed to explain the contents of the document.

12. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 pertain to the addition of Rs.2,13,00,000/- u/s 69B of the Act on account of unaccounted investment in land. The revenue has contested the deletion made by the CIT(A) of the addition of Rs.2,13,00,000/- u/s 69B of the Act on account of unaccounted investment in the land. It was mentioned in the assessment order that a document of the land was found and impounded as page Nos. 30 to 34 of Annexure A-4 from the office premises of the assessee at 102, Ritz square, Nr. Indoor Stadium, Athwalines, ITA No.547 & IT(SS)A 56/Srt/2024 A.Y 20-21 Rajesh Poddar Surat. Copy of this document is pasted in Para '7' of the assessment order. This is an unsigned document in Gujarati language on stamp paper of Rs. 100 titled as 'Bahendari no lekh' meaning 'Letter of Undertaking' dated 17.06.2019. It has been noted by the AO that as per this document, the land bearing Block No. 97, Gaviyar, has been purchased by Shri Kedar S. Jagirdar and the assessee through Shri Nitinkumar Chandubhai Patel from Smt. Parulben D/o Nathubhai Bhagubhai Patel and others for a consideration of Rs. 3,05,00,000/- vide Registration No. 5219 dated 30.03.2019 and in lieu of this deal, the assessee and Shri Kedar Jagirdar were to pay Rs. 7,31,00,000/- to Shri Nitinkumar Chandubhai Patel as profit, brokerage, for which this letter of undertaking was prepared. Schedule of payment mentioned in this document is Rs.2.50 Cr. up to 31.07.2019, Rs.2.50 Cr. up to 31.08.2019 and balance Rs.2.31 Cr. up to 30.09.2019, failing which interest @ 2% per month was to be paid and the purchasers cannot transfer the subject land. The AO also noted that the said land has been purchased by the assessee and Shri Kedar Jagirdar from Smt. Parulben Patel and others, therefore, facts written in this letter of undertaking are true and relevant to the transaction of purchase of land. Before the AO, the assessee contended that this document is a mere draft copy not signed by any party, that this draft has been prepared and left at his office by some outside party of which appellant was totally unaware and that no transaction was done with or through said Shri Nitinkumar Chandubahi Patel and that no amount was ever paid to him. However, these contentions of assessee were ITA No.547 & IT(SS)A 56/Srt/2024 A.Y 20-21 Rajesh Poddar not accepted by the AO and he concluded that the subject land was purchased for Rs.7,31,00,000/- as against the registered amount of Rs.3,05,00,000/-. The difference of Rs.4,26,00,000/- was the on-money paid by the assessee and Shri Kedar Jagirdar and accordingly 50% of the on-money i.e., Rs.2,13,00,000/- was added as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act in the hands of assessee.

ITA No.547 & IT(SS)A 56/Srt/2024 A.Y 20-21 Rajesh Poddar 13.1 The CIT(A), after considering these argument of assessee, agreed that such draft unsigned agreement has no evidentiary value and the transaction (payment) cannot be presumed merely on the basis of such unsigned document. He also noted that the AO has not mentioned about any other material found during search/ survey proceedings which indicates any such payments by the assessee and its co-owners. Moreover, there was no material on record which indicates that Shri Nitinkumar C. Patel had any interest in said land justifying such huge amount of payments as profit or brokerage. He further noted that the subject land was already purchased by the assessee and co-owners on 29.03.2019, whereas the said draft undertaking was prepared almost after 3 months on 17.06.2019. The amount demanded in it as brokerage and profit is more than double of actual consideration in the registered sale deed. The CIT(A) further observed that this land was purchased by five co-owners, whereas the subject undertaking contains name of only two co-purchasers. This fact also raises doubt on evidentiary value of said document. Furthermore, there was no material or circumstantial evidence suggesting any such payment at all. Accordingly, the CIT(A) concluded that the said unsigned draft undertaking is neither reliable nor sufficient for concluding any such actual payments of on-money and, consequently, he deleted the addition made by the AO.

16. We have heard rival submissions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. The basis for making this addition is the unsigned document titled as 'Bahendari no Lekh' (letter of Undertaking) found and impounded during Survey action u/s 133A of the Act at the office premises of the assessee. It is true that this document was found from office of assessee, but the assessee has explained that some third person got this document drafted and left the same at his office during his absence. The AO ITA No.547 & IT(SS)A 56/Srt/2024 A.Y 20-21 Rajesh Poddar has not made any inquiries with the seller of the land or the other co-owners mentioned in the document on this time. Further, there is no evidence indicating that the amount mentioned in this unsigned document was in fact paid. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the CIT(A) that merely on the basis of the unsigned draft agreement, actual payments of the amounts mentioned therein cannot be established.