Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. I have considered the facts of the case and also examined the seized documents in bundle no. 38 pages 1 to 19. It is seen that the Agreement for Sale as per page 1 to 15 of the seized bundle no. 38 is an unsigned document. The agreement is a draft for a transaction in June, 2012 between the assessee firm and M/s Jainam Developers, a partnership firm. On page 20 of the said draft agreement, the total consideration mentioned is 21.5 cr. and the manner in which it is to be paid is also mentioned. As per this draft agreement, 2.5 Cr. has been admitted to have been received. Rs.7.5 Cr. was to be paid by 30th August, 2012 and the balance was to be paid in eight equal monthly installments from the date of execution. The search and seizure operation took place on 12/09/2012. As per page 18 of the seized document, a ledger account of Jainam Developers is also found and seized. It is interesting to see that the sale consideration of land has been shown at Rs. 14 Cr. and this is a Journal entry dated 20/05/2012 in the ledger account of Jainam Developers in the books of the appellant firm. From page 16 and 17 of the seized bundle no. 38; a summary of advance tax calculation for the A.Y. 2013-14, as on 15/09/2012, has been computed. In these advance tax calculations, the consideration amount for sale of land/FSI is again shown at Rs. 14 Crs. it is possible to imagine that the actual sale consideration may have different than what is shown in the books of the appellant, but, the documents consistently support the claim of the appellant made ire the AO that after detailed negotiation the transaction was actually computed for a consideration of Rs. 14 Cr. only. There is no evidence available (other than the draft unsigned agreement) from the seized material which could corroborate the claim of the AO that the difference amount of Rs. 7.5 Cr, was actually paid in cash. The agreement of sale found during the course of search is an unsigned document and that it was merely a draft, as claimed by the appellant, is difficult to ignore and in the absence of any evidence either found during the course of post search enquiries or brought on record by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, it is difficult to accept that the total sale consideration was higher than Rs. 14 Cr. In fact, the seized documents corroborate the assessee's version that the sale consideration was Rs. 14 Crs only.

Ans. I would like to state that we have received Rs. 4,50 crores as advance from M/s jainam Developers and the document mentioned in above question by you is an unsigned draft copy of agreement. The deal is not yet finalized; hence tentatively we have booked the receipt of Rs. 14.00 crores in our regular books for the purpose of working of advance tax installment,

19. As can be inferred from the statement, the partner of the appellant firm in his statement on oath during the course of search reiterated that the document found was only an unsigned draft copy of agreement and that the deal was yet to be finalized. It was also stated by him that they had tentatively booked the receipt of Rs. 14 Cr. in regular books for the purpose of working of advance tax installment. 20. In view of the seized documents as indicated above and the statement u/s 132(4) recorded during the course of search, I am of the view that there is no evidence to support the inference made by the AO that a sum of Rs. 7.5 Cr. has been accepted in cash by the assessee. As this inference is without any evidence and could not be corroborated even during the assessment proceedings, I arn of the view that there is no basis for the AO to make this addition in the case of the appellant firm and therefore the AO is directed to delete the addition made on this account.

A.Y.2013-14

7. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we find that the addition was raised on account of unsigned agreement. The claim of the assessee was for the sale consideration of Rs. 14 crores only. Seized material nowhere speaks that the cash transaction was of Rs. 7.5 crores. Comparison of documents nowhere speaks about the difference of Rs. 7.5 crores alleged to be paid in cash. The Appellant prepared the draft agreement with Jainam Developers to initiate the business deal which was not signed by the assessee as well as Jainam Developers. The sale amount was shown to the tune of Rs. 21.50 crores and the deal nowhere seems finalized being not corroborated by any other document on record. After a long time, the deal was finalized to the extent of Rs.40 crores which was offered to tax. At this time authority determined the market value of the property to the tune of Rs. 13,08,92,000/-. The payment of Rs. 14 crores mentioned at page 150 - 153 of the paper book. The Ld. AO issued notice to the Jainam Developers who confirmed the deal to the tune of Rs. 14 crores. The Ld. AO raised the addition of Rs. 7.5 crores on the basis of assumption as well as difference between signed and unsigned documents. Addition cannot be raised on the basis of unsigned agreement specifically when the transaction is not corroborated by any other evidence on record. In this regard, we also finds support of the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Layer Exports Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.s3019-3021, 2985 & 2986/Mum/2011 and Bharat Singh vs ACIT ITA No.2001,3256/Del/2017 and CIT vs AKME Projects Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 379 (Delhi High Court). Moreover loose papers are also not liable to be taken into cosideration to raise the addition except corroborated by any other piece of evidence on record and in this regard, we also find the support of A.Y.2013-14 decision of Gujrath High Court in the case of CIT vs Dharmdev Finance Pvt. Ltd [2014] 43 taxmann.com 395 and Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal vs TRO [2014] 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune.Trib) etc. Number of decisions have been relied by the Ld. AR of the assessee to support his contention which need not required to be discussed. When sufficient evidence is not with the revenue then no addition can be raised on the basis in view of the decision in the case of CIT vs Roman and company 67 ITR 11(SC) and CIT-IV vs Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 32(Guj.). Taking into consideration of all these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) ) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, we affirm the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.