Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. with regard to the addition made u/s. 69C and 40A(3) on the basis of Annexure0-2, the AO on page 11 of the assessment order has held that the MOU dtd. 20.04.2007 is not reliable as he doubts the authenticity and credibility of the so-called MOU. The AO also found that the MOU was unsigned. About the unsigned MOU, it is not in dispute that the said document has been found and seized by the search party and it is not a document submitted by the assessee firm before the AO. Furthermore, when the other unsigned documents/papers particularly AnnexureO-2 found and/or seized can be admitted and taken as evidence, the said unsigned MOU should also be admitted as a whole and no different treatment can be meted out to the MOU alone. However, the facts and figures shown in the Annexure O-2 is further supported by:-

i) the detailed statements recorded u/s.132 on 19.02.2009 from Shri Ajit Thumar and from Shri Chaturbhai Thumar on 01.05.2009(Q.No.13 to 20 and

ii) also MOU stated above.

ITA No.1498&1499/12

17. It is pertinent to mention that on 22.01.2009 (search date) the search party could come across only the unsigned MOU dtd. 20.04.2007 but the said draft MOU was signed by all the parties to the agreement on stamp paper of Rs.100 issued to Jai Ganesh CHS on 19.04.2007. The AO himself in para 7.2.5 (page 11) of the assessment order, had stated that the assessee had submitted a xerox copy of the MOU signed by the related parties. The AO has not made any finding to the effect that the said signed MOU (which is the fair copy of the draft unsigned MOU) is bogus or made with a malafide intention. It is also clarified that the (i) unsigned copy of the MOU and (ii) signed copy of the same MOU are one and the same and the AO has not found any difference of even a coma or full stop in the said two copies of the same document. We found that Cash receipt of Rs 10.65 cr. appeared in the assessment order on Paras 6.1 & 6.2 on page 3; Paras 6.2.1,6.2.2 & 6.2.3 on page 4 and in other paras. More specifically, in para 6.2.1 (page 4), the AO himself states that the information of cash payment of Rs 10.65 cr. was gathered from the documents seized (Ann. 0-1 - Page 229) from the office of Madan Kolambekar. In para 6.2.2 (page 4 of asst. order) the AO also states about independent confirmation that Rs 10.65 cr. has been received by the assessee firm. The Ann. 0-1 (page 221) was not a document generated by the assessee but was seized by the Search Party from the office of Madan Kolambekar. This page 221 is a statement showing "Development charges" incurred by Madan Kolambekar. The very first entry in this statement of "Development charges" is for payment made in the name of Pathik Constructions for Rs.10.65 cr. Hence all the ITA No.1498&1499/12 transactions in respect of the land are either to be accepted in full or rejected in full as there cannot be selective treatment for some amounts. Another seized paper Ann. 0-2 (which is Page No. 92 of the impounded "loose paper file") states about the "Payment Details" to Jai Ganesh CHS., as under:-