Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) further noted that MOU is relating to "MOU between assessee and Simara Reality" and M/s Simara Relity during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO had stated that the MOUs are draft MOUs and never materialised due to dispute on terms and condition of the MOUs and the advance amount received through cheques were returned to the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any cogent evidence, creating direct nexus of payment of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- by the assessee. Thus, ld. CIT(A) noted that in absence of any cogent evidence having direct nexus with the impunged transaction, the said impunged paper i.e. page nos. 43 to 68 of LPS-72 cannot be used against the assessee. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon the relevant judicial pronouncements discussed the legal admissibility of the 'dumb document' holding Signature Coloniser/Builder 11 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 that the a dumb document cannot be used as an evidence to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. We find that ultimately, the ld. CIT(A) held as under: -

14 and Rs. 3,40,00,000/- in AY 2014-15 in cash.

4.4.7 In view of the above discussion, material evidences on record and case laws cited, the impunged MOU or say dumb document was undated, unsigned and not notarized/registered. The dumb document should be a speaking one reflecting each and every transaction completely, which was not in the case of appellant. The AO did not find any major discrepancies in books of accounts and therefore, books of accounts were not rejected by the AO. My findings on the issue under consideration are based on the various conclusions drawn by me which have been discussed in the above paras. Therefore, the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- in AY 2013-14 and Rs. 3,40,00,000/- in AY 2014-15 as unexplained expenditure. Thus, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- in AY 2013-14 and Rs. 3,40,00,000/- in AY 2014-15 are Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed."

Held that -

"In this case the department seized documents "Annexure A-28 p. 15, - gives the details of certain handwritten monetary transactions which shows that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 22.5 lacs on interest and earned interest income of Rs. 3.55 lacs on it. The Tribunal hold this document as dumb document.
The relevant findings of the Tribunal as mentioned in the above order is as under:-
"We have ourselves examined the contents of the document and are unable to draw any clear and positive conclusion on the basis of figures noted on it. The Signature Coloniser/Builder 16 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 letters 'H.S.', 'T.2' and 'D-Shop' cannot be explained and no material has been collected to explain the same. Likewise, the figures too are totally unexplained and on the basis of notings and jottings, it cannot be said that these are the transactions carried out by the assessee for advancing money or for taking money. Thus, in our opinion, this is a dumb document."
"15. Similarly, in the present case, as already held above, the documents recovered during the course of search from the assessee are dumb documents and there are concurrent findings of CIT(A) and the Tribunal to this effect. Since the conclusions are essentially factual, no substantial question of law arises for consideration".

Jayantilal Patel Vs. ACIT & Ors (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) - Held that -

"During search at the residence of Dr. Tomar, the Department official found a slip containing some figures. This piece of paper claimed to have been recovered at the time of search contains figures under two columns. In one column, the total of these figures comes to Rs. 17,25,000 from 31st May, 1989, to 8th Dec., 1989, and in the other column, the total of these figures comes to Rs.