Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. During the course of proceedings before us, Id. Counsel has mainly contended that the alleged document, i.e., MOU and kaccha chitthi, are unsigned, undated and mere draft and is a dumb document which Id. Assessing Authority should not have taken. We notice that the alleged document MOU is filed at page No.15-21 of the paper-book and kaccha chitthi at Page Nos. 22-23 and observe that the Memorandum of Understanding is prepared on a stamp paper dated 31.10.2007 between Uma Shakti Corporation Kalol Project, being the purchaser and the selling parties and this MOU is undated and only the stamp is of November 2007. There appears no signature of either of the parties on any of the pages. Even kaccha chitthi is also unsigned which speaks about a rough draft showing a partnership firm to be incorporated and there are other notings about installments and an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- is written on the last page of the kaccha chitthi. Ld. Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of these documents. Now, the question arises before us is whether this unsigned, undated MOU and kachha chitthi can be taken as corroborative evidence against the assessee in order to make an addition.

7. In short, it cannot be stated that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. No error is committed by the Tribunal. Tax Appeal is dismissed."

16. Going through the views expressed in the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High court and decision of Co-ordinate Bench which gives fair view that if from the seized material no nexus or reasonable conclusion can be arrived, then even if the documents are seized during the course of search, they cannot be used against the assessee. Examining the facts of the case before us, we observe that assessee-company was incorporated on 28.01.2008 and its first bank transaction was entered on 19.02.2008. Assessee-firm is having six partners namely S/Shri Vikas R. Patel, Brijesh S. Patel, Dipak G. Prajapati, Kamalbhai J. Patel, Bhagvanbhai K. Aajra and Arvindbhai N. Prajapati; and the major capital has come from Shri Bhagvanbhai K. Aajra. On viewing the alleged document, we find that the unsigned MOU is dated 31.10.2007 which is almost 4 months before the incorporation of the assessee-firm. The alleged MOU also do not fulfill the basic requirement of the valid contract which needs to a written or expressed agreement between two parties to provide a product or service and for a valid contract there has to be an intention to create legal relation, offer, acceptance, consideration and capacity to fulfill the contract. However, the alleged MOU, which is unsigned and undated, do not stand for as a valid contract and the same is not enforceable by law.