Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

5.14 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that no addition can be sustained only on the basis of the unsigned draft agreement to sell found from the premises of the third party and that too without any corroborative evidences. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer on the issue in dispute and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.83,50,000/- for alleged cash received on sale of 1st floor of the property under reference. The grounds No. 2 and 3 of the appeal are, accordingly, allowed. .........

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly. 5.8 It is observed that the facts in the above case, the nature of ATS seized (without any signatures & from the third party) and the deed writer from whom it had been seized, are same as in the case of the appellant. In fact in the case of the appellant, the ATS did not culminate into any sale deed, whereas in the above case, it culminated into sale deed at a lower value than mentioned in the ATS, with same parties as in ATS. After the detailed discussion and various case laws, the ITAT Delhi had concluded that no addition can be sustained only on the basis of the unsigned draft agreement to sell found from the premises of the third party and that too without any corroborative evidences. This decision of the ITAT Delhi is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Shri Bharat Singh Vs ACIT, New Delhi, it is held that no addition can be sustained only on the basis of the unsigned unexecuted draft agreement to sell found from the premises of the third party and that too without any corroborative evidences. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO of Rs 1,50,00,000/- is hereby deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed.

15. In the case of Shri Bhagat Singh vs. ACIT (supra), under identical facts and circumstances the co-ordinate bench held that no addition can be sustained only on the basis of the unsigned draft agreement to sale found from the premises of the third party and that too without any other collaborative evidence showing the cash payment as mentioned therein. However, we also note that the details of cheque mentioned in the ATS has been accepted and confirmed by the assessee which has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer but the assessee as well as the buyer has confirmed that no amount of in cash has been received by the assessee from the buyer. This fact has not been controverted by the Assessing Officer that the advance of Rs. 50 lac received through cheque from M/s. J P Holding & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. was returned through banking channel on 18.12.2010 vide cheque no. 118 drawn on syndicate bank and the deal was finally terminated. In view of foregoing discussion we reach to a logical conclusion that the ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition can be made and sustained only on the basis of unsigned unexecuted draft agreement to sale found from the premises of third party i.e. deed writer without any other collaborative evidence supporting the factum of receipt of cash by the assessee under the alleged document. We are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and thus we uphold the same. Accordingly, grounds of revenue being devoid of merits are dismissed.